Of sin and schadenfreude
So if you missed it, a prominent conservative evangelical preacher from Colorado, Ted Haggard was forced to resign from his church and confess to at least some of a homosexual escort’s allegations that he was paying for meth-fuelled gay sex while campaigning against same sex marriage. I don’t really want to add to the discussion of this. I actually don’t pay a lot of attention to US evangelicals so until the news came out, I didn’t really know who this guy was.
However, I had a couple of thoughts about this generally. It seems to me that if there is an element of the culture wars to be found in the worldwide christian church (and I believe that there is), it tends to show us all in the worst and least Christian light. For those that disagree with Haggard’s politics or theology, this dramatic downfall seems to be almost a gift. In one fell swoop everything he has ever preached, believed or created is completely undermined. His entire ministry will now forever be appended with an implied footnote - yeah, he grew this church from nothing to 14,000 people and had the ear of the president, but it turns out he was a fag, so what does that tell ya?
At once, he becomes the poster child for “those hypocritical conservatives” or, more broadly, “those hypocritical Christians”. However, none of this really logically follows in my view. A thriving sub-set of preachers and speakers on issues of sexual sin speak from a background of self-declared sexual struggle (a variation of the “I have conquered my evil thoughts” or “I have embraced that part of me that I once thought was sinful”). Obviously the guy is in crisis right now, but there doesn’t seem to me to be any reason why he couldn’t pursue his calling in some appropriately honest and forgiven way in the future.
As I have said, before the last week or so, I wouldn’t have known Ted Haggard if I tripped over him. With only the most casual glance over his political and theological positions, I am fairly confident that I would have disagreed with him on a whole range of issues. However I confess to being very uncomfortable with the implied breathless glee that comes with reports of yet another fallen moral crusader. I just can’t be pleased and self-righteous about the fact that a guy’s life has unravelled through his own sinfulness.
Similarly I can’t summon much shame and chagrin when people point out that leaders and speakers who influence my thoughts once wrote a couple of sentences which could be understood to be heretical, or that they once extended support to someone who it later turns out is not worthy of support.
I believe that in this “culture war” atmosphere, more and more we seem to take joy from the failings of others and use them as a reason to ignore or de-emphasise their point of view. Serious and major mistakes such as the ones I have been reading about appear to lend credence to the idea that smaller, even petty, shortcomings should similarly disentitle someone to express a political or theological opinion.
In Ben Elton’s book Blast from the Past he paints a picture of the US military in which the most important quality to acheive peace time promotion is to be innoffensive and free of controversy. The book suggests that in a climate which is anxious to stamp out scandal, the only people likely to assume positions of power are those that are too ineffectual to do the job. I wonder if the same can be said of moral leadership.
Some of my greatest spiritual heroes are people who have struggled with decisions about what is right or not. Sometimes they have made mistakes. But I always thought that this made them stronger. I like that Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrestled with his own conscience about whether to be involved in an assasination plot as an expression of his faith. I admire the fact that Oscar Romero was originally appointed ArchBishop of El Salvador because he had a record of turning a blind eye to injustice. I like that Luther made enemies and offended people. I like that one of the people I think most perfectly embodies the Christian ideal - Gandhi - was unashamedly not Christian.
However I wonder whether the church still has the ability to allow people to be flawed and in leadership. Our whole religion is based on the idea of redemption and forgiveness, but we allow so little of it with our leaders. I know that some of the people who comment here will jump to the situation of leaders who engage in spiritual abuse, but that is not my primary concern in this post.
My question is this. Does the global church and the public have the will and ability to embrace and support moral leaders with moral flaws? Or will we be unable to resist using those moral flaws to sink our opponents, and contribute to the elevation of the bland and inoffensive?
PS. I think that much of the conservative evangelical comment on this situation has been incredibly grace-filled, which is nice. The quotes from church members in the article I linked were lovely, but seemed to suggest that Haggard was no longer a part of the community - I hope that is not true, or at least that he and his family would continue to be pastorally cared for elsewhere.
December 4th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Veritas said:
‘Despising prophecy is the refusal to allow the Lord’s flock to bring the authority of Scripture to bear on one another and church leaders.’
I understand there are those of that view. I disagree. It seems to me this is simply the imposition of an inerrantists views onto the concept of prophecy, which is completely NOT the concept of prophecy found in either the New or Old Testament.
How do you reconcile this, for instance, with the prophets in the book of Acts? It does not gel particularly well.
December 4th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Emblazoned, we would need to determine firstly what is meant by the term prophet. Do we attach to the meaning of the word our common colloquial understanding of someone who predicts futuristic events or do we refer to the biblical meaning of the word prophet which is mainly understood to be speaking the voice of God (or thereabouts). [All seems to be slightly off original post topic though on this thread.]
December 4th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Veritas, I have heard many a conservative use that argument. But do you really think that’s what the word meant to the New Testament people? After their OT experience? After the oracle at Delphi? Their meaning was much broader. That’s why this argument to me looks like an inerrantist reading back into the meaning of the term what suits their argument.
December 4th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
and it is this very bible (the all we need) that says there is a five fold ministry -
and it is in that scripture that we find when those minsitries will end - to make it clear for you it is in verse 13 - th role of apostles, some prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers is for preparing GOds people for works of service until we reach unity in the faith, unity in the knowledge of te Son of God and become mature, reaching the whole measure of the fullness of Christ> Has that happened yet Homer? HAve we gfot unity in the faith? Have we attined the whole measure of the fullness of Christ? No? Well guess what? the five fold ministry remains.
read my post in 430 and answer those points. While you at it - perhaps you could respond to Alan Hirsch: http://www.signposts.org.au/2005/07/19/five-fold-ministry/comment-page-1/#comment-44643
Homer you don’t select or appoint apostles or prophets; they are discerned and I think Alans point above holds for this.
Ephesians is a letter that is about the church - and the church being prepared for goodworks - that being the case why would a part of what paul was teaching as ecclesial formation for good works or works of service be done away with when it is still a requiredment of the church that we be involved in works of service?
December 4th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
a better translation
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
Paul makes it pretty clear he is referring to Apostles appointed by Jesus I think.
However if you want an Apostle as a messenger so be it.
We get all we need in these days by the bible itself.
We know about the importance of the cross and resurrection and all other necessary doctrines.
The Early church didn’t.
December 4th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
We get all we need in these days by the bible itself.
Then why can’t you tell us where IT SAYS the prophets and Apostles would end. Not what YOUR OPINION IS _ JUST WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS> You Keep aying over and over it is all we need, then you espouse your opinion - not the bible we need.
Where homer, does the BIBLE say the scripture is ALL we need? your whole point is not backed up by any scripture - yet it is all we need?
Here is a Bible verse for you - John 1:1
December 4th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
I know this is off the current track… but I’m still really curious to know exactly what single people can do in the church in your opinion Homer?
December 4th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
I dont for th life o fme konw why you can;t answer a simple question, so here it is agin in case you missed it -please answer it or I wil take it as a personal insult and hunt you down and kiss you like the brokebackmountainlovinsydneyanglican you are
December 4th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
I think I discovered what you are on about Homer - You are a BIBLE DEIST, cannot see Christ apart from the Bible and equate the BIBLE as God.. So it appears to me anyway
from: http://www.futurechurch.co.za/?itemid=44
From Surprised by the Voice of God, by Jack Deere
Augustine had an entire book of confessions. Perhaps you will indulge me for just a single chapter of my own. Here is my confession: Somewhere along the way in my academic study of the Bible, I became a Bible deist. You probably studied deism in one of your high school history classes. The framers of the Constitution of the United States were mostly deists. They believed in a religion of morality based on natural reason, not on divine revelation. They believed in God, but they didn’t think he interfered with the natural laws governing the universe. He created the world, and then left it alone - like someone who wound up a giant clock, and then left it to run down on its own. A Bible deist has a lot in common with the natural deist.
They both worship the wrong thing. The deists of the eighteenth century worshiped human reason. The Bible deists of today worship the Bible. Bible deists have great difficulty separating Christ and the Bible. Unconsciously in their minds the Bible and Christ merge into one entity. Christ cannot speak or be known apart from the Bible. At one time, Christ did speak apart from the Bible. He used to speak in an audible voice to people on their way to Damascus, give dreams, appear in dreams, give visions, give impressions, and do miracles through his servants. However, the Bible deist believes the only one who does these things today is the devil. In fact, the devil can do all the things Christ used to do. The devil can speak in an audible voice, give dreams and visions, even appear to people and do miracles. Jesus doesn’t do these things any more. He used miracles and divine revelation in the first century to wind up the church like a big clock, and then left it alone with only the Bible. The Bible is supposed to keep the clock ticking correctly. That’s why a Bible deist reads a passage like Isaiah 28:29:
All this also comes from the LORD Almighty wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom
and in his or her mind, translates it into something like this:
All this also comes from the Bible, which is wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom.
Bible deists have a tendency to substitute the Bible for God. They actually deify the Bible. Bible deists read John 10:27 like this: “My sheep listen to the Bible; I know them, and they follow the Bible.” They hear Jesus say, “If I go away, I will send you a perfect book” (John 16:7). What God used to do in the first century is now done by the Bible. If the Bible can’t do what God used to do - heal, give dreams, visions - then the Bible deist maintains that these things are no longer being done, and that we don’t need them anyway.
Bible deists preach and teach the Bible rather than Christ. They do not understand how it is possible to preach the Bible without preaching Christ. Their highest goal is the impartation of biblical knowledge. Their highest value is being “biblical”. Actually, they use the adjectives “biblical” and “scriptural” more often than the proper noun “Jesus” in their everyday speech.
THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE OR OF ONE’S INTERPRETATION?
The Bible deist talks a lot about the sufficiency of Scripture. For him the sufficiency of Scripture means that the Bible is the only way God speaks to us today. He loves to repeat slogans like “The Bible is all I need to hear from God” and “What the Bible says is what we should say, and where the Bible is silent we should be silent.” Although the Bible deist loudly proclaims the sufficiency of Scripture, in reality, he is proclaiming the sufficiency of his own interpretation of the Scripture. Bible deists aren’t alone in this error. When many people say they have confidence in the Bible, what they really mean is they have confidence in their ability to interpret the Word, in their own particular understanding of the Bible, in their own theological system. Nobody says this out loud, for fear of being labelled arrogant. But they demonstrate it when they refuse to fellowship with those who baptise differently, or with those who have a different view of the gifts of the Spirit, or with those who hold a different view of the end times. Many Christians agree on the fundamentals of the faith, but are so confident that in the debatable areas their interpretation is the correct one that they separate themselves from those who differ with them.
The Bible deist is especially guilty of this because he conceives of the Bible and his interpretation as one organic whole. After all, the Bible deist has consistently applied grammatical, historical exegesis to the text. Above all, he has a good theological framework, and his interpretations are consistent with his theological framework. He stands squarely in a tradition that is hundreds of years old and has many illustrious names within it. With that tradition behind him, plus his own personal skills and abilities, he is sure he is right. Oh, there are times, when he can admit to the possibility of being wrong - for humility’s sake, or better, for the appearance of humility. Otherwise, he might give some people the impression that he thinks he is infallible. But in his heart of hearts he knows there is only the minutest possibility he might be wrong in any of his individual interpretations.
So it is extremely difficult for Bible deists to concede that they themselves might be presently holding an erroneous interpretation. They refer to their opponents’ interpretations as “taken out of context,” or as a failure to apply consistent hermeneutical principles. Or, in some cases, where they have little respect for their opponents, they chalk up their opponents’ views to just plain sloppy thinking. In those rare cases where they have to admit that their opponent has out-argued them, it wasn’t because their opponent had truth on his side. No, their opponent was a skillful debater - actually he was downright tricky. In one case, a theologian I knew was asked why other knowledgeable interpreters of the Bible held a different eschatological position from his own. “Sin,” came the terse but earnest reply.
The Bible deist is so confident in the sufficiency of his interpretation that it is difficult for him to be corrected by experience. He usually has negative comments about subjective things like feelings and experience. He doesn’t realize it, but it is more important to him to know the Bible than to experience its truth. This is the inevitable result of exalting the mind over the heart, and knowledge over experience. It also explains how someone full of biblical knowledge may be able to give a better explanation of humility than an elderly lady in his church - but possess so little humility when compared to her. Haven’t we all witnessed this tragic disparity?
December 5th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Greg, sorry but what is the question?
If it is the fivefold ministry then most people think Paul was merely giving out some roles not all of them. That is what I think.
Indeed no church have them!
Apostles put the building blocks of the church around. They were unique.
Evangelists, teachers, church planters etc.
Big Kev, stop being so emotional and think about what you are saying.
As I said previously I am merely stating the orthodox Reformed theological view on Apostles. YOU are not indeed you are saying Apostles and prophets are still here but like UFOs I cannot give you any evidence.
No-one here can give me or anyone else any evidence of any Apostles since their death. We have only ONE replacement , that of Judas. We learn James is dead but nothing happens.
Prophets is debatable however most people agree prophets are people who get a direct revelation from God.
It makes sense they were needed in the early church but as I said what can they add now as the very first two verses of Hebrews alludes to.
By the way we have that now in the bible John 1:1 that is unless you do not believe God wrote the bible.
If you only believe in something that is pro scripted then you will hard put to argue against sex outside marriage or the oral sex argument either as the bible says nothing directly on either.
They have to be inferred!
Janet,
I said before anything outside of what a bishop does or a deacon.
Evangelism I would have thought is an obvious area.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Whoa .. having had no internet access for 5 days, I have just caught up on this thread. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry as i was reading it (bit of both i think)
Homer, please tell me that you did not just say that John 1:1 is referring to the bible?!!
The bible itself says that it is authoritative, profitable, powerful etc, nowhere does it say that it is the only way God ever speaks to people. We’re nottalking about revelation of new doctrine, that is fulfilled (which is where your bit on Hebrews 1 comes in) we’re talking about understanding and application. Often what we need is the discernment of the human situation so we know which part of scripture applies to what we’re dealing with.
I used to be a cessationist (Heck, i’ve spent most of my life among SydAngs and Prezzies) but then I had experiences that challenged my presuppositions, went back and checked the bible and found that it didn’t actually say what I had been taught. Since then i have had many experiences, both as speaker and recipient that have more than convinced me that God didn’t just leave us with an instruction book, but is actively and presently relating to us now. Only a couple of months ago I was in a situation dealing with an abusive person in my family who has the knack of playing mind games and guilt trips that totally confuse me, till i begin to doubt my own perception and start thinking i must be the one who is wrong. I reached a point one day of such distress and confusion I couldn’t concentrate on the work I had to do and simply cried out to God to show me how He saw things, and what was the truth of my situation. That night I had a college class, and during break my lecturer, who knows zilch about my personal life, came up and said he felt he had a word from God for me. I don’t want to go into details on a public forum, but the things he said included that there was someone in my life right now who was trying to drag me back into the condemnation of the past, but this was not true (and a whole lot more besides.)
Now maybe you don’t want to call that prophecy, personally I don’t care what label you put on it, but I am willing to go to the stake to defend the reality that God still speaks into our lives, bringing healing, correction and liberation. He loves us too much to settle for anything less.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:46 am
isn’t is funny that I haven’t read my bible properly, but Homer can’t come up with one verse that says the apostles and prophets are no more. Homer, give us a verse or shut up.
rev
December 5th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Homer, two questions:
- what do you mean when you use the word ‘prophecy’?
- do you think this happens today?
I’m not asking you whether you think that ‘prophets’ exist today, I’m asking you whether you think that ‘prophecy’ exists today. Please don’t patronise me and tell me to go back and read - I want a straight out answer.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Bec,
Prophecy is generally meant to be a direct message from God.
No it doesn’t happen today because we already have his word.
God tells us in 2 timothy 3:17-8
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Note ALL scripture and we are COMPLETE.
rev,
I have never said the bible said that although the first two verses of Hebrews seem to downgrade prophecy somewhat.
Easy for you to prove Rev.
Tell us all where the Apostles are at the moment although I do note you have shut up about your pharisee rubbish!
Bestpickle I am merely saying the bible is God’s word no more no less
December 5th, 2006 at 11:16 am
‘I have never said the bible said that although the first two verses of Hebrews seem to downgrade prophecy somewhat.’
Ok. So you’ve conceded that it is only ‘downgraded somewhat’. That means it still has some form of validity at some level, no?
If it has some form of validity at some level, what is it? Explain it. Detail it. The fact is you can’t unless at some level you admit that there are extra-biblical experiences of God.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you’re a Sydney Anglican. I was raised in that context and actually left it to go to Hillsong, because I believed God spoke to me and I wanted to develop my spirituality. The Syd Angs had no concept of this but seemed to build a religion around a book, not a God. Sorry if this sounds harsh but this tension is a key part of my life story, perhaps even comparable to how the gay issue and the church is part of Lance’s life story.
Homer, Sydney Anglicans promulgate a very hard line on this particular issue that is easily open to criticism, if you step outside the system. We have asked you to back up your stands from Scritpure, but you can’t. Let me suggest why this is: YOUR POSITIONS ON THIS MATTER ARE NOT BASED ON WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS BUT ON WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT. I recommend questioning what you have been taught from a Scritpural perspective. If you wish to see a Scriptural case, I recommend Jack Deere’s ‘Surprised by the Voice of God’ as a good starting point.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:27 am
“Follow after love, and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, but especially prophesy…. the person who prophesies speaks to people to build them up, encourage them, and comfort them.” 1 Corinthians 14:1, 3 hal paraphrase
December 5th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Emblazoned, apart from the fact t5hat i’ve never been to Hillsong, I totally endorse your story. it’s mine too. I found Jack Deere very persuasive, but before I got that far what actually convinced me that SydAngs etc were wrong wasn’t the arguments against them but the arguments for them. When i actually looked at their reasons for saying God didn’t speak any more outside of scripture, it was some of the shonkiest exegesis I’d ever come across. (ok, Brian H does even worse things with his tithing doctrine, but I hadn’t encountered that then). eg ! Corinthians 13:9,10 is supposed to be referring to the scriptures being written. HUh? It sounds a lot more like the New creation to me. But then, i don’t read the bible like a Syd Ang — even when i have read it, studied it preached it, i still can’t claim to “know fully”, and nor shall i till I see Jesus face to face. And yes, this is a huge issue to me, too.
Homer (#494) I totally agree with you that the bible is God’s word. no arguments there. What i am saying is that it is not God’s only word — God is THE communicator and He speaks in more ways than we are willing to hear. And John 1:1 has zilch to do with the bible, he’s talking about Jesus, the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us, offering the highest and fullest communication possible of the grace of God to the brokenness of man.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:53 am
emblazened do not put words into my mouth.
I have NEVER said the bible says that Apostles and prophets are no more.
All I have said is only Jesus appointed the twelve plus Paul.
They were the foundation stones of the church.
They have not been replaced.
Since we have the bible we have no need for prophets. We are told all scripture is ….
I go to Gladesville Christchurch which is Anglican however I do not recognise Anglican bishops or archbishops or any other paraphernalia nor do I take communion there!
All I am doing here is talking about the orthodox reformed theological position. I can’t find a commentary of mine that says either apostles or prophets are modern day positions.
You might note none of the defenders of this can point to any either.
December 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
‘emblazened do not put words into my mouth.
I have NEVER said the bible says that Apostles and prophets are no more.’
What? I never said that you had said that! I havent been talking about apostles and prophets! I was talking about extrabiblical stuff! The only time I addressed apostles was a while back when I directly quoted you…how is that putting words in your mouth?
I can’t think of a commentary that supports modern day prophets and apostles (I’m sure they exist, but I don’t know any) so I concede this point to you. But I hardly think that proves anything.
December 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Apostles from the greek -via crosswalk.com
1. a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders
a. specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ
b. in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
1. of Barnabas
2. of Timothy and Silvanus
Since an apostle is a delegate, messenger, or one sent forth with orders – Timothy and Silvanus qualify.
Homer, you have to say then that Paul was not appointed by Jesus to be an apostle – Jesus was already in heaven at the time of his vision on the road to Damascus. Act chapter 9 - Here we see Paul, whose account of his calling is validated ony by his own vision and the unbelievers who were with him. In Acts chapter 9 – nowhere does Jesus call or rather title Paul to be an apostle – but a “chosen vessel” to preach (be a witness) before men and kings.
It is romans: 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Outstanding AMONG the Apostles -
so homer, your a man who believes the Bible is GOD’S word - then why isn’t GOD”S WORD forming your thoughts here - if we do not need the prophets and apostle’s becasue we have the Bible - then you don’t need th orthodox theologians, becasue You have the bible. But in this case, the Bible that you say you need seems to carry NO WEIGHT - But the Orthodox teachers whom you do not need form your theology….
BE HONEST _ Your thought is not biblical, it is merely “religious”.
December 5th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
or - are you saying that all you have been doing is repeating the orthodox view and that it is not your view?
December 5th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
I’m curious, why don’t you take communion at your church Homer?
PS. I live a few subrubs down from there….
December 5th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Big Kev,
I am merely supporting the orthodox view.
Paul apparently believes he was appointed by Jesus and being the biblical deist I believe it.
I would think there is a clear difference between the twelve plus Paul who are appointed by Jesus and the others who are probably just messengers.
A bit like knowing when servants are said and when deacons are.
now you are starting to ound as silly as rev.
Tell me Kev what are these modern day Apostles and prophets of whom you cannot identify tell you that the bible cannot.
The reason for the crucifixation?
The physical ressurection?
perhaps that is what Hebrews 1:1-2 is about.
At the start you need eyewitnesses to both events and who were taught by Jesus to build on Jesus keystone.
You then need prophets to asssit with this.
Eventualy we have teachers, evangelists, bishops,deacons and who knows what.
emblazoned,
I see no reason why only an ordained person must lead in this so I take communion at the Baptist church at Blaynet when I anm there.
A bit of Romans 14 for my money.
It isn’t an important issue, I do not tell anyone and leave it at that.
Not all of us are teachers , only a small % are bishops or deacons.
If Paul believes that all scripture is enough to … then it is good enough for me.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
So let me get this right…you have voluntarily opted yourself to be in a belief system that puts the Scritpurre above all other means of knowing God, when the Scripture itself does not ask you to do this. Is that correct?
December 5th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
how else can one know God?
December 5th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
You cannot know Him by scripture - you can only know ABOUT Him by scripture. He is a person, so Jesus came to give us access to HIM and scripture is the record of Him. We know His character through scripture but we know HIM through the SPIRIT - the living, flowing, speaking (today) Holy Spirit.
Don’t tell me homer that you believe the Bible IS the Holy Spirit….
December 5th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
That wa s not a question - you couldn’t answer it if it was, so I am happy just to assume you think the Bible IS the Holy spirit. No reply required.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Big Kev,
you are going all liberal when you get emotional. You said scripture is enough which means you wish to add not to 2 timothy 3:16!
Go and settle down and find out what mainstream evangelical thinking is on this topic. It simply isn’t like you to make such a silly statement about Paul’s veracity as an Apostle
Ever wondered why you can’t point out to anyone a modern day Apostle or prophet?
December 5th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Wow! And to think I thought that there were only three members of the Trinity!!
December 5th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
‘how else can one know God?’
Ok, that’s a big question Homer, and I can’t hope to be completely exhaustive, but I’ll give it a shot.
1. General revelation
Romans 1:20:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
So we can know about God through his revelation in creation.
2. Personal Revelation
I need a big amalgamation of Scritpures to argue this one and to be honest I couldnt be bothered at the moment. But suffice to say through the reconciling work of Jesus we are able to experience God in a personal way. The Holy Spirit bears witness to our spirit (an extra biblical experience - could someone find that passage?).
This opens the door to present day interaction with the Holy Spirit. This is not to claim infallible revelation. As a raging Pentecostal for some years I can tell you flatly no prophecy is inerrant. But no one is claiming that modern day prophecy is.
As to your other question, I think I could point to modern day prophets in Australia. Apostles are harder to find.