A very serious major doctrinal change after the apostles

[Evangelist]

The problem with this logic is that, if one believes that the apostles disappeared in the first century and we had no Bible till at least the 3rd century, does that mean there were no new churches, because there were no apostles or written word in book form yet? Also, even when we had a cannonized Bible, many people could not read it, and even many more had no access to them.

Did I mention this already?
First 1000 years ... no education, no Bibles, only priests educated and had all spiritual power (icons used to teach the Bible).
1000 a.d. ... 2 Bulgarians formed the Cyrllic alphabet for the Slavic countries.
Soon after this, the Slavs had Bibles and were FAR advanced over Europe, who still couldn't even read.
Soon after this, Bulgarian missionaries evangelized Russia.

[slightlypuzzled]

Do you believe that churches have been started up without the Lord initiating said establishments?
Do you believe that men have just started up churches on their own?
Those missionaries that went to Africa 100-200 years ago, and were all killed in the first week,
were they sent by God? ... or did they take it upon themselves to GO FORTH for the Lord? etc. etc.
Now, the hoopsters will come forth and say God sent them to be martyrs for Him, etc.

This just might get us to the crux of this whole thread: What is a 'true church', and what is one that God rejects? I this point as closer to the meaning of the OP? Are you saying that if a church does not exhibit the 'signs', then it cannot be a true church? If so, then what is a true Christian?
Furthermore, are you implying that there was no 'real church' until the rise of the charismatic movement in the late nineteenth century?

[slightlypuzzled]

The problem with this logic is that, if one believes that the apostles disappeared in the first century and we had no Bible till at least the 3rd century, does that mean there were no new churches, because there were no apostles or written word in book form yet? Also, even when we had a cannonized Bible, many people could not read it, and even many more had no access to them.

Well, they did start to circulate copies of Paul's Epistles, and copies of the Gospels soon after they were written. Such as Iraneus, Clement of Alexandrea, mention them in the early part of the second century. The major churches that Paul started had copies of the original letters that Paul wrote to him, and both sets, Gospel and Epistles, were circulated among the churches and large portions were read in the services when each church met.

[slightlypuzzled]

Another problem with that logic is that not all people believe that the Bible is the word of God. Furthermore, nowhere in the context of the NT does it say that signs or affirmations of the Word wont be needed for future generations. It's as if some believers think that some of the NT is no longer applicable today.

When Paul wrote 1 Cor 14:37, he wrote it for all generations of what he was instructing. Not just for those living in the first century.

Your first sentence can lead to some paradoxes...as I have stated, even Abraham acknowledged to the Rich Man that if they would not accept the Law and the Prophets, they would not believe even if one should come back from the dead. And that became prophetic of the Jews right up until seventy AD.
It is debatable at best if a miracle service would convince a hardened atheist. I myself was convinced by reading the Word, and accepting it's claims; I needed no signs, except the sign of Jonah....the resurrection of Christ.

[slightlypuzzled]

Did I mention this already?
First 1000 years ... no education, no Bibles, only priests educated and had all spiritual power (icons used to teach the Bible).
1000 a.d. ... 2 Bulgarians formed the Cyrllic alphabet for the Slavic countries.
Soon after this, the Slavs had Bibles and were FAR advanced over Europe, who still couldn't even read.
Soon after this, Bulgarian missionaries evangelized Russia.

Ok...this is not really typical of the Apostolic times, but is true of parts of the evangelization of the Slavic areas, including modern Russia which uses the Cyrilic alphabet. But, that came later...

[Boo]

The problem with this logic is that, if one believes that the apostles disappeared in the first century and we had no Bible till at least the 3rd century, does that mean there were no new churches, because there were no apostles or written word in book form yet? Also, even when we had a cannonized Bible, many people could not read it, and even many more had no access to them.

The had "No bible" if you are considering the single book like we have. They had the letters written by the apostles - those who displayed the supernatural sign gifts.

I thought that an apostle is considered to be only those who actually saw Jesus. Am I to understand that there are those who know of apostles walking around today?

[Watchman]

I thought that an apostle is considered to be only those who actually saw Jesus. Am I to understand that there are those who know of apostles walking around today?

Hi Boo,

Not exactly. Recall that Peter laid out the qualifications of the one who was to replace Judas. They were: of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection. Given these so-called qualifications for an apostle, Paul is disqualified. However, if these are simply what was needed to restore the original number of 12 witnesses of Christ's resurrection, as the text says, and possibly to represent a 'complete' witness to the Jews, then the qualification for an apostle is found in Ephesians 4: they must be given to the church by Christ to equip the saints for the work of ministry.

Ephesians 4:11-13 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Acts 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out…

1 Corinthians 4:6a, 9a Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit…For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena.

1 Thessalonians 1:1;2:6 Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you…We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else, even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority.

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Philippians 2:25 But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, co-worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger (Greek apostolos) , whom you sent to take care of my needs.

Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Recall the underlined portion of Ephesians 4, above: until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. God isn't finished with us yet, neither has the work of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers been completed. These gifts were given to the church UNTIL then.

blessings,

Watchman

[Slug1]

[I]Ephesians 4:11-13 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Seems that this is the problem with many people in the Body of Christ today.

This scripture's context and meaning is about ALL the Body of Christ. Not the individual.

So while "A" Christian may consider themselves mature and that they have already attained their WHOLE measure of the fulness of Christ... what about the person who accepted Christ last week who is sitting next to them in the pew?

So if God is to work a supernatural blessing (s/w/m) for that one who is not mature, or who does not have faith in God... who is God to use as a vessel?

[Watchman]

Ephesians 4:11-13 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Seems that this is the problem with many people in the Body of Christ today.

This scripture's context and meaning is about ALL the Body of Christ. Not the individual.

So while "A" Christian may consider themselves mature and that they have already attained their WHOLE measure of the fulness of Christ... what about the person who accepted Christ last week who is sitting next to them in the pew?

So if God is to work a supernatural blessing (s/w/m) for that one who is not mature, or who does not have faith in God... who is God to use as a vessel?

Excellent question (bolded above by moi). WHO is God to use as a vessel for the weak, the immature, and those who do not believe? This is not about the works themselves, nor is it about the vessels. It pertains only to the purposes and glory of God, yes?

W

[Slug1]

Excellent question (bolded above by moi). WHO is God to use as a vessel for the weak, the immature, and those who do not believe? This is not about the works themselves, nor is it about the vessels. It pertains only to the purposes and glory of God, yes?

W

Always, it is of God's good works in the sense that God does glorify Himself through the work He does through vessels.

Cept... many say they are too mature and thus, God honors that and He won't use them.

So "who" will He use?

[Evangelist]

This just might get us to the crux of this whole thread: What is a 'true church', and what is one that God rejects?
I this point as closer to the meaning of the OP? Are you saying that if a church does not exhibit the 'signs',
then it cannot be a true church? If so, then what is a true Christian? Furthermore, are you implying that
there was no 'real church' until the rise of the charismatic movement in the late nineteenth century?

I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, which BTW, have nothing to do with signs.
I was just talking about some churches are set up by God, and others are not.

[slightlypuzzled]

The had "No bible" if you are considering the single book like we have. They had the letters written by the apostles - those who displayed the supernatural sign gifts.

I thought that an apostle is considered to be only those who actually saw Jesus. Am I to understand that there are those who know of apostles walking around today?

If you mean one 'exactly like' we have today, with the OT and NT bound together for mass printing, then they did not have those for many centuries. However, they had all the parts withing reach, and the 'most important' were fairly available to all who really looked.
As for 'Apostle', Peter defined one as:
Acts 1: 21 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— 22 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.

In the end, an Apostle must know what Jesus did, and be a witness to the resurrected Christ. Paul, as being taught personally by the Lord Jesus, also qualified in a unique sense.

[Boo]

Hi Boo,

Not exactly. Recall that Peter laid out the qualifications of the one who was to replace Judas. They were: of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection. Given these so-called qualifications for an apostle, Paul is disqualified. However, if these are simply what was needed to restore the original number of 12 witnesses of Christ's resurrection, as the text says, and possibly to represent a 'complete' witness to the Jews, then the qualification for an apostle is found in Ephesians 4: they must be given to the church by Christ to equip the saints for the work of ministry.

Ephesians 4:11-13 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Acts 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out…

1 Corinthians 4:6a, 9a Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit…For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena.

1 Thessalonians 1:1;2:6 Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you…We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else, even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority.

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Philippians 2:25 But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, co-worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger (Greek apostolos) , whom you sent to take care of my needs.

Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Recall the underlined portion of Ephesians 4, above: until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. God isn't finished with us yet, neither has the work of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers been completed. These gifts were given to the church UNTIL then.

blessings,

Watchman

I note that Paul, during his opening in the book of Galatians, explained that he was an apostle - not by man's selection - but by Jesus Himself. When the apostles went to replace Judas, they cast lots for the pick. The person they picked appeared never to be mentioned again in scriptures. Maybe, their pick didn't meet with God's approval. Instead, God picked Paul?

Since there are references to apostles, teachers, evangelists, etc; there must be a difference between all of them. The reference in Philippians you gave refers to an apostle being a "messenger" from God. That would seem to indicate that there were those at that time to whom God spoke and gave messages for the people. That would indicate, to me at least, that an apostle's teachings are God breathed. That is what all of our scriptures are as well. If there were apostles walking the earth today, would they not then have their words recorded as scripture as well?

I would think then, that if there words are already in scripture, then they must be only teachers, preachers, or evangelists. What makes a person an apostle rather than one of the others?

Thanks for your response,

[Eyelog]

Eyelog,
I’m a bit slow, but I’ve finally taken care of some other things that needed attention and can now address, as promised, the points you raised regarding “that with is perfect” (1Cor. 13:10).


I agree, of course, with all of this but I’m curious why you didn’t bother to give any examples of where this word was used in the New Testament. You did give some NT examples of the root word telos (which I will discuss momentarily), but none for teleios. Strange. Well, let me do that for you.

• Matt. 5:48. “Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
• Matt. 19:21. “…if thou wilt be perfect…”
• Rom. 12:2. “that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.”
• 1Cor. 2:6. “…we speak wisdom among them that are perfect…”
• 1Cor. 13:10. “But when that which is perfect is come…”
• 1Cor. 14:20. “…but in understanding be men.”
• Eph. 4:13. “Till we all come… unto a perfect man…”
• Phil. 3:15. “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect be thus minded…”
• Col. 1:28. “…that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.”
• Col. 4:12. “…that ye may stand perfect and complete in the will of God.”
• Heb. 5:14. “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age...”
• Heb. 9:11. “…a greater and more perfect tabernacle…”
• James 1:4. “But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.”
• James 1:17. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above…”
• James 1:25. “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty…”
• James 3:2. “…the same is a perfect man…”
• 1John 4:18. “…perfect love casteth out fear…”

The reason I thought it important to put these passages before you is so that you can see that in none of them, unless our problem passage in 1Cor. 13:10 is the exception, is teleios used in reference to Christ. In two places (Matt. 5:48 and 1John 4:18) it is used in reference to love. In one place it is used in reference to patience (James 1:4a). In one place (James 1:17) it is used of God’s gifts generally. In one place (Heb. 9:11) it seems to refer to heaven. In two places (Rom. 12:2 and James 1:25) it refers to the Word of God. And in all the other places it is used in reference to Christians, or more specifically, to their spiritual maturity.


I confess that I found it a little bit odd that you observed the “Passover” in your comments, more or less “passing over” the actual word used in 1Cor. 13:10 in favor of discussing the root of that word. After reading your post, I understand why you did it, but I don’t think that even the root word gives you the support that you think it does, nor that you need it to provide in order to support your conclusions regarding 1Cor. 13:10. After introducing the root word telos you proceeded to offer a series of passages where that particular word was used, whereupon you then offered the conclusion…

And then from that, you proceeded to argue that since the root word telos means “the end of the age” then its derivative teleios in 1Cor. 13:10 must also be pointing to the end of the age (or more specifically, to the coming of Christ at the end of the age, when we will be given our spiritual, imperishable bodies). Among the flaws in your logic is the fact that your definition of telos doesn’t match the definition given by Strong’s, which interestingly enough you provided to us. The fact of the matter is that telos does not always mean, as you assert, “the end of the age.” It simply means the termination of a thing, or the limit at which a thing ceases to be. A number of places in the NT it is used with respect to the end of the world. But here are some other scriptures where this same word is used and “the end” to which it is pointing is something well short of the end of the age or the end of the world. In the interest of time and space I will not quote the scripture, but I’m sure you have access to an online Bible that you can look them up.

• Matt. 10:22. Used in reference to the end of our lives.
• Matt. 24:6. In my opinion, the “end” here is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
• Matt. 24:13. Used in reference to the lives of the Christians in Jerusalem prior to 70AD.
• Matt. 26:58. Used in reference to the events that led up to Jesus’ crucifixion.
• Mark 13:13. Used in reference to our own lives, that we should be faithful until death.
• Luke 22:37. Used in reference to the life of Christ being the “end” or fulfillment of OT prophecies.
• Jn. 13:1. Referring to Jesus’ death.
• Rom. 10:4. Referring to the end of the Law of Moses, it’s fulfillment in the coming of Christ.
• 2Cor. 3:13. Referring to the end of the Law of Moses and the beginning of the Gospel age.
• 1Tim. 1:5. Referring to the end, aim, or purpose of the commandment being love.
• Heb. 3:6, 14. Referring to our lifetime on the earth.
• 1Pet. 1:9. Referring to the aim or purpose of our faith, the salvation of our souls.

The point is that telos does not necessarily mean the end of the age as you affirmed. It simply refers to the end or termination of a succession or series of things, or that by which a thing is brought to a close or finish. Each of our lives will have a telos that may or may not be at the end of the age. The Law of Moses had its telos when the Gospel came. The telos of the OT prophecies was Christ, who fulfilled them.

Your comments on 1Cor. 15:42-55 have no bearing at all on 1Cor. 13:10. I do not disagree with you that when Jesus comes again our mortal, corruptible bodies will be given up and we will be given imperishable bodies. The problem is that 1Cor. 13 is not talking about “perfect bodies.” It is using “perfect” as a contrast with “partial” (we know in part, we prophesy in part). In 1Cor. 13, Paul is not contrasting imperfect, mortal bodies and perfect immortal bodies; he is contrasting imperfect and perfect knowledge and prophesy.


With all due respect, I don’t think your explanation comes anywhere near dealing with the words in context. So far I haven’t offered my own understanding of what that passage is referring to, but I hope to correct this shortcoming in my next post.

There are several contexts at play in understanding any verse in Scripture, or passage. i gave you the teleological context. You didn't like it. ... Ain't opining grand?

I am impressed you did not take my ignoring of the Teleios verses lying down. i am unimpressed with your missing why i did it, and with your use of those verses.

I am impressed you read what I said at all, however. Good for you.

[slightlypuzzled]

I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, which BTW, have nothing to do with signs.
I was just talking about some churches are set up by God, and others are not.

The answer was implied in my reply, but maybe I read you wrong.
I could not understand if you were pointing to an actual event, or a hypothetical event. Also, were you implying that because they were martyred so quickly, that God had not sent them. Is there an implication that the results, a quick martyrdom, implies that God had nothing to do with their work?
The answer, to me, will lie in the motives of the missionaries themselves, and not in their deaths, as such. If they were witnesses, and killed for their witness, I would say that God honored what they were doing, as He does all who witness with the right heart. Please note Paul's point in 1Cor. 13: ...and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. We can do things for the wrong motives, and be judged on that basis. However, as Paul testifies in Phil. 1, things can be done for the wrong personal motives, but still accomplish what God wants: 15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.
God will use a variety of ways to accomplish His will, as He has done with Pharaoh, with Babylon, with the Prophets, and with Paul. So, it seems that in setting up a church, what matters is the establishment of a fellowship that grows in His love and wisdom.