The apostles were all appointed by divine commission, the original 12 by Jesus, then Judas turned from Grace, and Paul was appointed as special discipleship to the Gentiles.
We can have many disciples, but only the original apostles.
THE APOSTLES DID NOT PREACH THE SAME GOSPEL
- Thread starter DougE
- Start date
We can have many disciples, but only the original apostles.
They cast lots and it fell on Matthias.
They chose to cast lots after they had reduced it down to two candidates. They weren't required to do it in that manner and there's no evidence that God supernaturally made the choice through the dice. He certainly could have done so but I suspect that God was fine with either choice and let the dice fall where they may. Regardless, we know that Matthias did become a legitamate member of the twelve Apostles and therefore that one of the twelve foundations of the walls around New Jerusalem will have his name on it and not Paul's.
Clete
Then why were there thirteen?
Right Divider
Body part
They certainly seemed to think that God was the one making the choice.
Act 1:24 KJV And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
:thumb:
Right Divider
Body part
And more...
Act 13:2 KJV As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Act 14:14 KJV Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
God also chose Barnabas to be an apostle.
Jesus was also an apostle.
Heb 3:1 KJV Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
And since "apostle" only shows up in the Greek, there were also "apostles" in the Hebrew scriptures too. They're just not called "apostles". Most of the old covenant prophets could rightly be called apostles.
This feels like proof texting to me. There is one apostle to the Body of Christ, not two and not twelve and certainly not thirteen or fourteen.
The term "apostle" can be used generally of anyone who is called by God but we aren't discussing it in the general sense but rather in the specific sense of being either a member of THE Twelve or being THE Apostle to the Body of Christ. There is no story in Acts about a Damascus Road type experience with Barnabas but there is information about him and Paul having a disagreement so sharp that they separated and then we never hear from Barnabas again. Instead we have Paul asserting his own personal authority all over the place to include repeatedly calling the gospel of grace, "my gospel".
Revelation 21:14 is undeniable proof that there are twelve and only twelve "Apostles of the Lamb". And I'm not at all sure that any of the Twelve Apostles can rightly be considered prophets in the same sense that Elijah or Malachi or Daniel were. Jesus was a Prophet but Peter wasn't. It is true that John wrote Revelation which no doubt make him a prophet in the sense that he conveyed prophecies but when people start to write a list of Israel's prophets, John is not typically going to be on the list and I think for good reason. He wasn't a prophet, he was an Apostle. The extent to which any of the twelve were prophets is only to the extent that the two offices have overlapping functions.
None of this should be taken in any sort of dogmatic way. I'm just thinking this through as I type it.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
I never said anything about apostles for the body of Christ. I'm was simply saying that there are more than thirteen apostles in general.
You should know me well enough by now do know that I'm not disagreeing with that.
Paul was clearly called out singularly, whereas the twelve were clearly called out as twelve.
The twelve were called out for ministry to twelve tribes, whereas Paul was called out singularly for ministry to the one body.
I appreciate your attention to detail and desire for clarity. We share that trait. Also, I'm sorry for possibly muddying the waters here. That was not my intention.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Here is what Paul told those who received 1 Corinthians:
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).
Notice that these words were not just addressed to the believers in Corinth but also everyone who called on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ:
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1 Cor.1:1-2).
Since there can be absolutely no doubt that the Twelve called on the name of Jesus Christ then we can know that the Twelve were members of the Body of Christ.
I'm so releaved!
First, none of what I said was me trying to teach you anything that I didn't already think you were fully aware of. As I said, that post was just me thinking it through as I typed it.
But I will admit to being thrown for a bit of a loop there. As you say, I feel like I know you well enough to know that there is almost nothing that we disagree about and so your post definitely took me by surprise.
It's interesting the different reaction to it I had coming from you rather than most other's on TOL. The notion that I had missed something important carried much more weight coming from you. I got out commentaries and even dug up and listened through the chapter fourteen portion of Bob's bible study through the book of Acts. You really got my mental juices flowing. I haven't had to do that much thinking since someone ask why Paul condoned getting baptized for the dead (which he didn't actually do, by the way).
Clete
bibleverse2
New member
Of course there is. For "Gentiles" comes first.
Only in the sense of whom they would primarily preach the one and only Gospel to.
For there is no other Gospel than grace (Galatians 1:6-9; 1 Peter 5:12b), which both Paul and the other Apostles received by revelation directly from Jesus Christ Himself (2 Peter 1:16).
No, there isn't.
So what? Just because Paul lists them in that order does not mean that the primary focus should be on the first item listed.
There are many gospels in the Bible.
And once again, we get back to the question, "If Paul's gospel was the exact same as the Twelve's, then why the need for Paul in the first place?"
bibleverse2
New member
Note that Acts 9:15 are the words of Jesus Christ Himself, and the order of His words indeed had meaning (Romans 11:13).
Note that there is only one Gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), preached by both Paul and the other Apostles (1 Peter 5:12b).
In order to focus on the Gentiles (Romans 11:13).
So what?
Because you say so?
Considering that the period of time between Paul's conversion in Acts 9 and the time when Paul wrote Romans was about 22 years, and that in the time immediately following his conversion we see Paul ALWAYS beginning with going to the JEWS first, and not the Gentiles first, we can determine that what you say is not the case, the the focus was not primarily (at least not originally) on the Gentiles.
Because you say so?
Paul is NOT saying that there is only one gospel here.
He is talking about the men sent from James who were trying to get Paul's converts to keep the law, where Paul's ministry is ALL ABOUT NOT keeping the law, because the gospel given to Peter, James, and John and the rest of the Twelve was ALL ABOUT KEEPING THE LAW, as Jesus said "keep My commandments."
Paul's entire ministry is about NOT keeping the law.
Things that are different are not the same.
Jesus and the Twelve: Keep the Law.
Paul: Don't keep the law or you'll be cursed.
Things that are different are not the same.
1&2 Peter were written yet another 9-10 years after Romans, and by that point, Peter had mostly come to accept Paul's ministry as being different, though he still had a hard time comprehending it all (2 Peter 3:16).
You'd think that if Peter and Paul were teaching the same gospel, they wouldn't have ANY disagreements on what to teach, yet they clashed multiple times, with Paul even calling Peter a hypocrite to his face!
You don't do that if you're teaching the same gospel, because there wouldn't be any differences to argue about to begin with!!!
Seems like a poor allocation of manpower then.
Why originally send 12 people into the world, and then later they go nowhere but stay mostly in Jerusalem and Israel as a whole, but send one person out to the whole world?!
It doesn't make logistical sense at all!
And again, Paul originally went to the Jews, and it was only after THAT that God told him to go to the Gentiles, and even then, if he came across Jews, he went to them first, and then the Gentiles second.
So again, WHY PAUL to the entire world, when God already had 12 capable men to teach, if the gospel is the same?
I can see where this is going. It's there already!
bv2 will not answer any question directly, if at all. He will, instead, argue by assertion. He will simply declare his doctrine and think that it counts as a rebuttal argument.
And I said that correctly. He does and will continue to think that he's answered the argument by having simply pronounced his position against it.
Imagine, bv2, if you encountered someone who did the same but concerning something other than doctrine...
Would that convince you to go find you a dowsing rod and start practicing or would you think that you were talking to a fool who can't think clearly enough to have a two way conversation that leads any further than just past his own nose?
Your doctrine isn't true because you believe it and it doesn't become true because you come here and state it with confidence. If you don't have an answer for the argumenst against your position but remain unconvinced then say so and that'll move the discussion much futher foward than would you just stating and restating your position over and over again.
Clete
bv2 will not answer any question directly, if at all. He will, instead, argue by assertion. He will simply declare his doctrine and think that it counts as a rebuttal argument.
And I said that correctly. He does and will continue to think that he's answered the argument by having simply pronounced his position against it.
Imagine, bv2, if you encountered someone who did the same but concerning something other than doctrine...
Mr. Gullible: "See this here dowsing stick. It really works!"
bv2: "It's been proven over and over that dowsing doesn't really work."
Mr. Gullible: "I know it works because I've done did it. See that well over there? Dowsed it, I done dowsed that." (This is as close to making an argument as Mr. G ever gets.)
bv2: Well, I see that dry well you dug over there and two more over on the other side of the property, what happened there?
Mr. Gullible: "Look here. Did I dig there well that's full of water or not? I dug that spot because of best dowsing twig pointed down so hard it nearly jumped right out of my hands!"
bv2: "I think that this is what is known as a confirmation bias."
Mr. Gullible: "You can use all the four syllable fancy words you want. I done dug the well, didn't I?!"
And that ain't all I dug up either! See this perdy rock? I found that with my dowsing rod too! See there? There's a cross right there in the patterns on that rock. That's proof that Gawd Himself was at work and it wasn't but just a few minutes, just two or three minutes later I tell ya, when that dowsing rod nearly broke my wrist pointing to the exact spot where I dug that well over there. I had to dig and dig though! All them dry ones were obvious duds aver only five maybe six feet but I knew for sure that this one was the real deal and so I just kept on diggin' and diggin' until Gawd rewarded my faith with a well that ain't never gonna run dry!
bv2: "Ever think that if you had dug that first one just as deep that it would have hit water too?
Mr. Gullible: "Look here! You can't argue with Gawd, boy! The rock with the cross in it! Don't you see! That's the proof! That and that well over yonder with more water in it than a hundred men could drink!"
bv2: "It's been proven over and over that dowsing doesn't really work."
Mr. Gullible: "I know it works because I've done did it. See that well over there? Dowsed it, I done dowsed that." (This is as close to making an argument as Mr. G ever gets.)
bv2: Well, I see that dry well you dug over there and two more over on the other side of the property, what happened there?
Mr. Gullible: "Look here. Did I dig there well that's full of water or not? I dug that spot because of best dowsing twig pointed down so hard it nearly jumped right out of my hands!"
bv2: "I think that this is what is known as a confirmation bias."
Mr. Gullible: "You can use all the four syllable fancy words you want. I done dug the well, didn't I?!"
And that ain't all I dug up either! See this perdy rock? I found that with my dowsing rod too! See there? There's a cross right there in the patterns on that rock. That's proof that Gawd Himself was at work and it wasn't but just a few minutes, just two or three minutes later I tell ya, when that dowsing rod nearly broke my wrist pointing to the exact spot where I dug that well over there. I had to dig and dig though! All them dry ones were obvious duds aver only five maybe six feet but I knew for sure that this one was the real deal and so I just kept on diggin' and diggin' until Gawd rewarded my faith with a well that ain't never gonna run dry!
bv2: "Ever think that if you had dug that first one just as deep that it would have hit water too?
Mr. Gullible: "Look here! You can't argue with Gawd, boy! The rock with the cross in it! Don't you see! That's the proof! That and that well over yonder with more water in it than a hundred men could drink!"
Would that convince you to go find you a dowsing rod and start practicing or would you think that you were talking to a fool who can't think clearly enough to have a two way conversation that leads any further than just past his own nose?
Your doctrine isn't true because you believe it and it doesn't become true because you come here and state it with confidence. If you don't have an answer for the argumenst against your position but remain unconvinced then say so and that'll move the discussion much futher foward than would you just stating and restating your position over and over again.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
That proves nothing. There is nothing there to indicated that the ordering is significant.
That's laughable.
There are many "gospels" in scripture. Gospel simply means "good news" and there is lots of that in the Bible.
That so many over-blow that word (even feeling the need to capitalize it) is sad and distorted.
God's Truth
New member
He was defending his office.
Paul is the one who shows the definition of an apostle.
An apostle is one called and sent by Jesus, and able to do many miracles.
Matthew 10:1 [ Jesus Sends Out the Twelve ] Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
Galatians 1:1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,
Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders.
Okay, glad to discuss with you.
Saying it doesn't make it so. The text could not be any clearer.
It is your doctrine that requires it do be something other than Paul seperating his ministry from the Twelve.
This is your doctrine being read into the text.
These passages simply communicate facts that were true of most of the Apostles but it ignores Matthias and even if it didn't, these passages are not given as any sort of definition. That's not the point they are intended to communiate at all. Whenever someone accuses someone of taking a passage out of context, this is just exactly what they are talking about. If this was a valid way of doing doctrine, you could literally have any crazy doctrine you wanted. You could insist that crying was a holy sacrament of the church because "Jesus wept." (John 11:35) Or, to use logic more directly related to what you're doing here, crying could be considered a necessary qualification of (or definition of) being the Messiah.
Clete
God's Truth
New member
Galatians 1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
2 Corinthians 3:6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Beautiful! Shows perfectly that Paul taught the one and only new covenant that Jesus made and taught while he walked the earth.
Is this really how you do doctrine?
It's the same faith but not the same gospel message. Jesus Himself didn't preach the same gospel that the Twelve preached after Pentecost. In fact, He specifically told His disciples to keep their mouths shut concerning anything He had told them about His death and resurrection. Not that He would have really needed to because they didn't believe it anyway! And Paul's gospel is so radically different that if not for the book of Acts, no one would believe that he was anything other than the lunatic leader of some cult that splintered off from first century Christianity.
Having said that, it really isn't an entirely different gospel. It's still the same God with the same Son Who created us and Who loves us and wants to save us if only we put our faith in Him. It's the details that have changed. Before, in addition to loving God, you basically had to become a Jew and obey the Law of Moses, get circumcised, avoid unclean foods, observed the Sabbaths, tithe, etc, etc. Now, you still believe in the same God but now it's God Who has fulfilled the Law for you, who has been cut off (i.e. circumcised) for you and so now, if you become circumcized Christ will profit you nothing. No one, not a single person anywhere in the bible ever taught such a thing until Paul, who not only taught that we are not to place ourselves under the law but taught that Jesus nailed the law to the cross and called that message "my gospel".
Lastly, why Paul in the first place? If Paul was preaching the same thing as the Twelve, where's the need for Paul? Why, after Paul came to explain his gospel to the Twelve did the Twelve agree to stay in Jerusalem and minister to those of the circumcison (Israel) only, while Paul went to the nations with the gospel of uncircumcision? How is such an agreement possible, if your doctrine is correct and they were all preaching the same gospel?
Clete