Churchwork
10-01-2006, 07:59 PM
I did not say that
Yes you did. Your sins are as follows beginning with when you said:
"I saw a prophet get a word for a man that he was an apostle."
You said this after I had said, "Apostles are the main Workers in that Ministry of Work for the Church". Being an Apostle is not doing something more, but the fact that he is directly commissioned by God to work regionally, give the Gospel, set up the churches, by appointing Elders of a locality and train them.
An apostle already knows his work, he does not need a prophet to tell him, for he is already commissioned by God to do the work of appointing Elders to take care of a locality and to train them. All prophets, evangelists and teachers can do is send him out with approval as they let Paul down the side of the wall to depart from the locality of these prophets, evangelists and teachers. God's ordering is Apostles first, prophets second (Eph. 4.11). Never confuse God's ordering.
I said, "Only God commissions Apostles" and you responded by saying,
"Prophets and teachers were fasting in Antioch when the Spirit spoke to set apart Paul and Barnabas".
This is a counter point to argue against God directly choosing apostles first. Not once did you forthrightly agree, but were always responding with a spirit of dissension. May I say the reason for your hostile attitude was because you said you were previously removed from Biblocality Forums for some bad behavior, so now you are retaliating with a spirit of dissension.
Next, I said, "You found a false prophet. If this man [or woman] is truly an apostle [the one you said the prophet made], he would know his position from God, not from a man [a prophet]."
To counter, you said,
"I suppose I could have asked him if he knew of his calling beforehand. It often happens that way".
It is not "often" at all, but always that God chooses apostles directly, and never through men. All men can do is affirm the authority or send him down the wall of the locality. First an apostle is an apostle, then he is sent out. He was not an apostle all of a sudden when he was on the other side of the wall or just before he arrived at the wall or once the prophets decided he was an Apostle. The reason he was placed on the other side of the wall was because he was an Apostle sometime before, only then did the prophets discover this fact.
Therefore, this prophet you speak of that made the apostle is a false prophet for prophets don't do that. And the apostle would be a false apostle for you said he was such because he was made by the prophet. Either this is the case, or you have sinned bearing false witness against these souls. You should repent.
Often what someone does after sinning is they deny, deny, deny and hope the problem goes away. The sin remains in them though, because instead of repenting, they refuse to confess. They would rather try to find some way to self-exalt themselves at all cost. The reason for all your flailing accusations in your numerous posts then is because you pass blame which belongs with you alone and so, you should take it back where it belongs. But, instead of correcting your mistake, you compound the problem in your flesh by adding sin upon sin like extra blankets covering up what is underneath.
Then I said, "You had said this to argue against the fact that God directly commisions apostles only!" You responded with,
"God does confirm callings through prophets and other brethren."
Again, this shows your spirit of dissension to argue against the fact that Apostles are directly commissioned by God only and not through prophets. Where is the humility in that?
"I probably would have said that I could not draw a definite conclusion on the matter based on scripture, but that God is sovereign."
This sentence contradicts itself for you DID already say what you said in error, so you can't say you would have said otherwise. You can't turn back time. It is also a contradiction because you can't say you can't draw a definite conclusion, then proceeded to draw a definite conclusion. That's like saying I can't fix lawnmower because you don't have the tools, but then try do so anyway. People who try to be couth will say two opposites. It is wrong to take a position, then say you would not have taken that position. It's too late to change the past.
False teaching continues,
"If a prophet declares that God has given someone a gift...The gift may or may not have been apostleship. Whether an individual apostle hears about it for the first time through a prophet, that is for the Lord to decide. I can't say the Lord will do this, or He won't because God hasn't revealed it either way in scripture as far as I can see."
There is no instances in the Bible of an Apostle hearing for the first time that he or she is an Apostle from a prophet. This is merely your imagination that it could happen. You should not exalt prophets above Apostles. To be an Apostle is not a gift, it is an office. It is not based on any of the gifts. It is a commission directly given by God to do the work of Apostles. An Apostle knows he is an Apostle always directly from God in his spirit, never from a man first.
Do you see how you always go back to your same old false teaching? And logic says since you admit it has never happened in the Scriptures, why still hold out for this false teaching? If all the evidence points one way and not the other, then why is there any dispute at all about it? That's like saying it's still possible the Earth could be flat. This is a prideful idea, like Agnostics saying God still might not exist.
Formerly you made claims, but now say you are unsure. Remain that way as long as you are unsure. Don't try to rationalize your previous view but repent. And don't make any claims you can't back up in the Word of God. God loves a humble heart. I trust these words will be helpful to you.
Yes you did. Your sins are as follows beginning with when you said:
"I saw a prophet get a word for a man that he was an apostle."
You said this after I had said, "Apostles are the main Workers in that Ministry of Work for the Church". Being an Apostle is not doing something more, but the fact that he is directly commissioned by God to work regionally, give the Gospel, set up the churches, by appointing Elders of a locality and train them.
An apostle already knows his work, he does not need a prophet to tell him, for he is already commissioned by God to do the work of appointing Elders to take care of a locality and to train them. All prophets, evangelists and teachers can do is send him out with approval as they let Paul down the side of the wall to depart from the locality of these prophets, evangelists and teachers. God's ordering is Apostles first, prophets second (Eph. 4.11). Never confuse God's ordering.
I said, "Only God commissions Apostles" and you responded by saying,
"Prophets and teachers were fasting in Antioch when the Spirit spoke to set apart Paul and Barnabas".
This is a counter point to argue against God directly choosing apostles first. Not once did you forthrightly agree, but were always responding with a spirit of dissension. May I say the reason for your hostile attitude was because you said you were previously removed from Biblocality Forums for some bad behavior, so now you are retaliating with a spirit of dissension.
Next, I said, "You found a false prophet. If this man [or woman] is truly an apostle [the one you said the prophet made], he would know his position from God, not from a man [a prophet]."
To counter, you said,
"I suppose I could have asked him if he knew of his calling beforehand. It often happens that way".
It is not "often" at all, but always that God chooses apostles directly, and never through men. All men can do is affirm the authority or send him down the wall of the locality. First an apostle is an apostle, then he is sent out. He was not an apostle all of a sudden when he was on the other side of the wall or just before he arrived at the wall or once the prophets decided he was an Apostle. The reason he was placed on the other side of the wall was because he was an Apostle sometime before, only then did the prophets discover this fact.
Therefore, this prophet you speak of that made the apostle is a false prophet for prophets don't do that. And the apostle would be a false apostle for you said he was such because he was made by the prophet. Either this is the case, or you have sinned bearing false witness against these souls. You should repent.
Often what someone does after sinning is they deny, deny, deny and hope the problem goes away. The sin remains in them though, because instead of repenting, they refuse to confess. They would rather try to find some way to self-exalt themselves at all cost. The reason for all your flailing accusations in your numerous posts then is because you pass blame which belongs with you alone and so, you should take it back where it belongs. But, instead of correcting your mistake, you compound the problem in your flesh by adding sin upon sin like extra blankets covering up what is underneath.
Then I said, "You had said this to argue against the fact that God directly commisions apostles only!" You responded with,
"God does confirm callings through prophets and other brethren."
Again, this shows your spirit of dissension to argue against the fact that Apostles are directly commissioned by God only and not through prophets. Where is the humility in that?
"I probably would have said that I could not draw a definite conclusion on the matter based on scripture, but that God is sovereign."
This sentence contradicts itself for you DID already say what you said in error, so you can't say you would have said otherwise. You can't turn back time. It is also a contradiction because you can't say you can't draw a definite conclusion, then proceeded to draw a definite conclusion. That's like saying I can't fix lawnmower because you don't have the tools, but then try do so anyway. People who try to be couth will say two opposites. It is wrong to take a position, then say you would not have taken that position. It's too late to change the past.
False teaching continues,
"If a prophet declares that God has given someone a gift...The gift may or may not have been apostleship. Whether an individual apostle hears about it for the first time through a prophet, that is for the Lord to decide. I can't say the Lord will do this, or He won't because God hasn't revealed it either way in scripture as far as I can see."
There is no instances in the Bible of an Apostle hearing for the first time that he or she is an Apostle from a prophet. This is merely your imagination that it could happen. You should not exalt prophets above Apostles. To be an Apostle is not a gift, it is an office. It is not based on any of the gifts. It is a commission directly given by God to do the work of Apostles. An Apostle knows he is an Apostle always directly from God in his spirit, never from a man first.
Do you see how you always go back to your same old false teaching? And logic says since you admit it has never happened in the Scriptures, why still hold out for this false teaching? If all the evidence points one way and not the other, then why is there any dispute at all about it? That's like saying it's still possible the Earth could be flat. This is a prideful idea, like Agnostics saying God still might not exist.
Formerly you made claims, but now say you are unsure. Remain that way as long as you are unsure. Don't try to rationalize your previous view but repent. And don't make any claims you can't back up in the Word of God. God loves a humble heart. I trust these words will be helpful to you.