As to the "gifts of the apostles" this is as God detemines...see 1 Corinthians 12:11
But if you check his comments with JD's teaching: "The qualifications of an apostle are given in acts..." I believe one can arrive at a correct understanding.
There are certainly no new Apostles today but we still have the gift of the Apostles.
Whithout getting into all the obvious problems and contradictions with the notion that there are new Apostles today let me state that we certainly do have the gift of the Apostles today in the Scriptures themselves.
Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Shalom.
Regards
Karl
This will upset many and probably attract scorn but I say the following after much thnking-although I have not come to a final decision yet.
I have been protestant for 18 years but overwhelmingly dissillusioned with the myriad of interpretations of scripture leading to doctrinal mess in protestantism.
Shock horror- I have been seriously studying the early church fathers and especially the ante nicene fathers.
I am horrified by what I read. I see a early church more resemblant of Roman Catholicism-that is overwhelming writings confirming:# real prescense in eucharist# eucharist is a memorial sacrifice/oblation# prayers for dead# allusions to purgatory# honour and leadership of Rome.
Could it be that the apostolic officce ,not successor to apostles, is the Catholic Church.If as Catholicism claims , Christ has commissioned her to guard the truth and be the interpretor of scripture, that would be common sense.
The reformation was split-ie Luther believed in a sort of real prescense-Calvin did not.Luther tried to remove 4 new testament books /Calvin didnt.It seems the Catholic church is unchanged?Im not a catholic-yet. Please dont abuse and heap scorn -
Lkarl
You are not an apostle. I think you have a demonic spirit and you seriouly twist the precious words of the Bible.
?
"You are diametrically opposed to any Calvinist like Spurgeon in terms of predestination, election, salvation, form of worship and providence."
In case you have forgotten, or just didn't know, the gospel is the foundation of Christianity! Why would I not oppose someone who denies the foundation and lays another? I am surprised you are not in agreement with me. Pre-selection is a different foundation, my confused friend!
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
The building began with him when he was laid in the earth as the chief corner stone and the building began to be built, first the apostles and then the Jewish believers, then the gentile believers and it remains as a work in progress through today, but the building will soon be complete and Jesus will come for it at the gathering together of all believers in Christ, living and dead, in heaven and in earth to be in glory with Christ.
Can you say "Amen"?
As you can see it confirms what you are posting in similitude to your own teaching.
Also contains Rutherford's "A brotherly and free Epistle to the patrons and friends of pretended Liberty of Conscience."
Putting this work into its context, James Clark, in The Life and Works of Samuel Rutherford (in the chapter titled "Antinomianism") writes,
"This is another main controversy into which Samuel Rutherford entered. The term 'Antinomian" signifies one who is 'against God's Law'. The Antinomians were a major sect in the 1640's. They denounced as 'Legalists' the Christians who, like Paul, 'serve the law of God' (Rom. 7:25). They asserted that grace removes the Law out of the Christian's life, as absolutely as it does out of his salvation.
This dangerous heresy, which is still popular, makes it no fault to disobey God's Moral Law, and turn grace into wantonness. Rutherford mentioned this heresy in several of his works before publishing in 1648 his SURVEY OF THE SPIRITUAL ANTICHRIST, written specifically against the Antinomians.
The subtlety of Antinomians is that they oppose the use of the Law as a positive standard for holy living in the name of the Gospel! The Apostle Paul repudiated this error in Rom. 3:31; 6:1,2; Gal. 5:13" (p. 52).
Rutherford's Free Disputation, though scarce (with maybe only a few copies of the actual book left in existence), is still one of his most important works.
Though Rutherford is affectionately remembered in our day for his Letters, or for laying the foundations of constitutional government (against the divine right of kings) in his unsurpassed Lex Rex, his Free Disputation should not be overlooked -- for it contains the same searing insights as Lex, Rex. In fact, this book should probably be known as Rutherford's "politically incorrect" companion volume to Lex, Rex. A sort of sequel aimed at driving pluralists and antinomians insane."
Dodds adds this testimony,
"Last fatal sign that the ancient spirit and the freedom of Scotland were about to disappear under a total eclipse, the Kirk hitherto impregnable, unyielding Kirk, stooped down from her old height and emitted Resolutions in favour of those proceedings of the royalists. Against these Resolutions, a large, bold, fierce minority headed by James Guthrie of Stirling protested that the principles of the Covenant should be maintained" (Ibid.).
Finally, Johnston writes,
"Durham's last treatise had reference to the 'scandalous divisions' thus created, and what is particularly noticeable is the circumstance that David Dickson's last hours were embittered by the recollection of his short-sightedness in adopting these Resolutions. ***To a lady who visited him on his death-bed he said, 'Madam, I must confess, the Protesters have been truer prophets than we were'***" (Idib.) 20 pages.
Hewison writes of this paper,
"(t)he Protesters compeared (at the pretended assembly of the Resolutioners--RB) to lodge a protestation subscribed by 63 ministers and 80 laymen, who declared the Assembly to be 'unlawful, unfrie, and unjust.' The Assembly threatened them with discipline" (The Covenanters, vol. 2, p. 43).
Rutherford and the other Protesters held their ground and refused to have ecclesiastical fellowship with the backsliding, covenant-breaking Resolutioners -- a lesson on faithful biblical separation that has long since been forgotten.
This work gives us a little slice of the Protesters views during this most important period of controversy in the Church of Scotland: for as Anderson notes,
"(f)uture events showed the impolicy of these Resolutions. The men who were admitted by them into places of power and trust in the army and state, became, as the Protesters always predicted, the persecutors of the Church. Had the counsels of the Protesters prevailed, the twenty-eight years' persecution might not have existed" (cited in Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, p. 120).
I have to chuckle sometimes with your comments. Like most modern day evangelical and fundamental type Christians, you preach... "Scripture Alone" and "Jesus Alone" and things like "Worship God Alone" and "Sing Praise to God Alone".
However, really it is all talk. It really is all smoke and mirrors.
One who really loves the Lord, with all of heart, soul, MIND and strength will be able to see the distinctions between a true faithful Christian, and one who is a deceiver and being deceived.
As a modern fundamental Baptist, who is dispensational, pre-mill and taught in the theological foundations of Scofield and Darby, it is not a surprise that you would make light of Spurgeon's comments.
From your view, Spurgeon was a heretical pastor on the doctrine of salvation and the gospel. You are diametrically opposed to any Calvinist like Spurgeon in terms of predestination, election, salvation, form of worship and providence. All being absolutely fundamental issues separating a true and faithful Christian from one who talks the talk.
Make light of Spurgeon and Rutherford if you like, and wave your bible in the air as your only source of faith and practice. Those of us that know your doctrinal presuppositions will sit back and chuckle.
- Letter 186 of Samuel Rutherford, 1637 (from the Letters of Samuel Rutherford)
Regarding Rutherford's Letters, C.H. Spurgeon wrote, "What a wealth of spiritual ravishment we have here! Rutherford is beyond all praise of men. Like a strong-winged eagle he soars into the highest heaven and with unblenched eye he looks into the mystery of love divine."
Continuing, Spurgeon comments,
"let the world know that Spurgeon held Rutherford's Letters to be the nearest thing to inspiration which can be found in all the writings of men... none penetrated further into the innermost heart of holy fellowship with Jesus. Whenever we think of him we compare him to Milton's Uriel, the angel that stood in the sun itself."
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=32906113556
Thanks for your comments in regards to the greek word "gave."
It is the same word used in the most well known verse in the Bible, John 3:16, For God so loved the world that He "gave" His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
In the past, God gave His Son for the world. Even though it happened in the past, should we not claim that promise even today?
