Conference yukon::christian_v7

    .0  Profound!

    It's curious how we tend to emphasize the Apostles' ignorance and 
    commonality, which can plainly be seen in the account of their lives
    early after their selection by Jesus, at the expense of what must have
    been an exponential improvement in motive, eloquence, knowledge, wisdom, 
    and Spiritual fruit after Pentecost and throughout the larger part of
    their lives.
    
    You know, we tend to do the same concerning Jesus, remembering Him more
    in His incarnate vulnerability rather than His present majesty.
    
    jeff
    

 "When they saw ... and realised that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they
  were astonished, and they took note that these men had been with Jesus."

								Acts 4:13

   That's what makes the difference.  That's where I want to be.

							Andrew

> "When they saw ... and realised that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they
>  were astonished, and they took note that these men had been with Jesus."

>								Acts 4:13

>   That's what makes the difference.  That's where I want to be.

>							Andrew
    
    Strictly speaking, you nor I can ever be in their position for we are
    not Apostles living in the first century with our incarnate Lord and we 
    are schooled and I'd say pretty ordinary, at least I am ordinary ;)
    
    And your comment kind of supports my observation - we tend to emphasize
    their pre-Pentacost lives (and generally bleeding over to their
    post-Pentecost early lives as described in Acts) while underemphasizing
    the expected growth in maturity and Fruit which must have occurred in
    their lives (as we would expect in all Christian lives over time) and
    is reflected in the magnificent Gospels and some of the epistles.
    
    jeff  

    My Pastor said a while back something I liked.  He said go through
    the bible and notice how anyone who met Jesus was never quite the 
    same again.
    
    
    Jill

But Jeff, do we not all have the same goal - to be with Jesus, to learn from
Him and to walk in His ways? And has God not promised to equip each of us
to do His will and accomplish glorious things in His name? Why did the
disciples do such great work? Because God was with them! And God is with us.

Leslie

PS. I don't think unschooled means illiterate or ignorant, but rather it means
they were not Torah scholars, spending their days in learning Torah in a
yeshiva. But if one learned from the source of the Torah like they did, well
there can be no greater a teacher!

    Jeff,
    
    At what point does pride goeth before a fall?  
    
    Seems an odd question, doesn't it?  I think most folks tend to identify
    with the apostles pre-pentecost days because it gives us hope in
    ourselves.
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but your note seems to find fault with people
    who appreciate the apostles for their simplicity before Christ.
    
    Nancy

    RE: .4
    
    I would imagine Andrew's point to be NOT positioning himself with the
    Apostles, rather that he, too, wants to be noted as having been with
    Jesus.  In other words, I took Andrew's comment to be emphasizing the
    difference being with Jesus makes, rather than emphasizing the common-
    ness of the disciples.
    
    Jeff, there are at least two ways to help others grasp what you see as
    truth: 1) Nit pick what others say in order to expose error at all
    costs, listening with an ear to criticize; and/or 2) Commend what truth
    can be found in others' thinking and "expound unto <them> the way of God
    more perfectly." (Ac 18:26b, KJV)
    
    "Let <good communication proceed out of your mouth> to edify profit-
    ably, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." (Ep 4:29, KJV)
    
    /Wayne 

Hi Jeff,

Of course we can never be in precisely the apostles position!  But any
Christian has a particular advantage over their pre-pentecostal state, in
that we have the indwelling Holy Spirit.  He is our teacher.  The point of 
my note was that our desire should be to listen to Him and reflect Him.  
Jill got it.

Note also that we are told a lot more about their pre-pentecostal days,
when they were with the LORD, than we would tend to learn about them from
Acts.  One reason for this is that in Acts, we are seeing the Holy Spirit
work rather than just the ordinary men, and His moving is according to the
occasion, rather than from mortality.  Those who might be tempted to copy
the outward appearence of Acts, without the genuine inspiration of the 
Spirit would bring dishonour on the Name, and fall flat on their faces.  It 
is easier to distinguish and relate when we see the man's response 
contrasted with the LORD's guiding so explicitly as in the gospels.  and 
when Peter does make an inspired utterance, Jesus immediately identifies 
it, and the Souce clearly for us all to understand.

� while underemphasizing the expected growth in maturity and Fruit which
� must have occurred in their lives 

That would detract from the LORD to a degree, by looking at the glory He 
has given to man, instead of recognising its true source and heart in Him 
alone.  The epistles are clear about what Christian growth we should 
expect, experience and strive for by looking to Him.  It is unprofitable to 
look comparatively at others to see what growth they are exhibiting, as 
though it were to be displayed for man to admire.

I think that by and large, the balance is right ... in the Bible! ;-)

								Andrew

    Hi Leslie,
    
>But Jeff, do we not all have the same goal - to be with Jesus, to learn from
>Him and to walk in His ways? And has God not promised to equip each of us
>to do His will and accomplish glorious things in His name? Why did the
>disciples do such great work? Because God was with them! And God is with us.

>Leslie
    
    Of course we do!  This is not in relation to the original point of my 
    initial entry in this topic but to Andrew's response which introduced a
    different meaning.
    

>PS. I don't think unschooled means illiterate or ignorant, but rather it means
>they were not Torah scholars, spending their days in learning Torah in a
>yeshiva. But if one learned from the source of the Torah like they did, well
>there can be no greater a teacher!
    
    I agree.
    
    jeff

	Hi Nancy,
        
    >At what point does pride goeth before a fall?  
    
    >Seems an odd question, doesn't it?  I think most folks tend to identify
    >with the apostles pre-pentecost days because it gives us hope in
    >ourselves.
    
    Yes, it is an odd question and I can only imagine what you must mean by
    it.  
    
    But you have at least responded to the observation!  I can only assume
    that you do not *really* mean that the lives of the Apostles prior to
    their Spirit-baptism are lives which give us any hope today.  I also can 
    only assume that you do not *really* mean that we have any hope in
    ourselves.
    
    >Correct me if I'm wrong, but your note seems to find fault with people
    >who appreciate the apostles for their simplicity before Christ.
    
    >Nancy
    
    You are wrong as you can be, Nancy!!!  And I would be so grateful if
    you would banish such an idea forever.  This sort of "evil
    motive injection", if you will, is harmful and unwarranted.
    
    The Apostles' simplicity, as you say, (which is not what I said)
    is neither to be elevated nor denigrated - it is just a fact.
    
    My observation, now in the form of a question, remains - why do we so
    regularly see such items as the basenote with their emphasis on the
    pre-Pentocost Apostles, which was the smaller portion of the Apostles' 
    lives?  Why is Peter's "passion", for example, elevated while the work of
    Christ in him obviously made him a great leader of men and the church,
    which role he played for many years?  Similarly, why is Thomas'
    doubting emphasized when surely the Lord modified this greatly and made
    him a great man of faith?
    
    It really is a simple question.  I would be dishonest if I said I
    wasn't somewhat surprised at the reactions I've seen here.
    
    jeff

Hi Wayne,
        
    >I would imagine Andrew's point to be NOT positioning himself with the
    >Apostles, rather that he, too, wants to be noted as having been with
    >Jesus.  In other words, I took Andrew's comment to be emphasizing the
    >difference being with Jesus makes, rather than emphasizing the common-
    >ness of the disciples.
    
    I understand Andrew's response but it was not to the
    observation/question at hand, but a statement about his own desires.
    
    jeff

>Of course we can never be in precisely the apostles position!  But any
>Christian has a particular advantage over their pre-pentecostal state, in
>that we have the indwelling Holy Spirit.  He is our teacher.  The point of 
>my note was that our desire should be to listen to Him and reflect Him.  
>Jill got it.

    Thanks Andrew, but your response is a digression from my observation.
    
>Note also that we are told a lot more about their pre-pentecostal days,

    Well, we may have more detailed account of their lives but that doesn't
    explain why that period of their lives and its attendant behaviors is 
    predominately emphasized.
    
� while underemphasizing the expected growth in maturity and Fruit which
� must have occurred in their lives 

>That would detract from the LORD to a degree, by looking at the glory He 
>has given to man, instead of recognising its true source and heart in Him 
>alone.  
    
Oh, I disagree completely.  We are instructed to follow the example of
    Godly men (who are not Godly in themselves).  We are instructed to
    admire, respect, and honor Godly men.  The fruit of the Christian,
    and by necessity and especially the fruit of those appointed to have
    great positions of authority and power, is to be seen by
    the world and certainly by Christians.  There is no danger in properly
    esteeming, emulating, and admiring the work of Christ in mature people
    in fact we are commanded to do so by Paul.
    
    jeff

    
    If the Apostles were to apply today for positions of leadership they
    would overwhelmingly be characterized as great leaders by virtue of the
    work of the Holy Spirit in their lives, their position and experience
    in appointed offices, and their performances in those incredibly 
    difficult, demanding, and downright dangerous fields of endeavor.
    
    jeff

    Sheesh! :-)  Depends on whether we look at the Apostles before or after
    Christ, Jeff.
    
    God gave us the example of both.  I think it GREAT hope and
    encouragement to folks who feel as though not even God would want them
    to look at the lives of the pre-Christ apostles, they were simple men.
    
    And the hope of course lies in Christ and for you to imply that I meant
    anything else after all the years of my noting in this community is
    insulting.
    
    

    
    What note are you responding to, Nancy?
    
    jeff

    This one and several others! :-) :-)

        
    >God gave us the example of both.  I think it GREAT hope and
    >encouragement to folks who feel as though not even God would want them
    >to look at the lives of the pre-Christ apostles, they were simple men.
    
    I understand you have had a very particular history which you have come
    to characterize as an exagerrated sense of undesirability to God.  And I 
    suspect this illusion is present in some number of people.  However, I do 
    not see this as the prevalent self-estimation of the Apostles before 
    Pentecost or after in their preaching and therefore do not understand how 
    their lives would refute such an idea.  In any case, it still doesn't
    answer the question of why the sense of the basenote is so prevalent.
    
    >And the hope of course lies in Christ and for you to imply that I meant
    >anything else after all the years of my noting in this community is
    >insulting.
    
    Nancy, please, please control yourself!  You not only implied but said
    exactly, "hope in ourselves".  I clarified in favor of the actual
    meaning you stated above!  I ask you sincerely to "give me a break".
    
    jeff

    Okay, let me make myself vulnerable in expressing my opinion.
    
    Jeff, you made the observation that, for whatever reason, we tend to
    pay more attention to the disciples' pre-Pentecost lives than to the
    their transformed lives as Apostles.  However, I took the basenote to
    show that modern-day man likely would have rejected the men Jesus chose
    to establish His church.  See Psalm 118:19-24 and Ephesians 2.
    
    I thought the whole point was, in fact, to emphasize that what man sees
    or otherwise regards as "foolish or weak" very often is the means by
    which God chooses to reveal His "wisdom and power."  See 1 Corinthians
    1:18-31.  That in a nutshell, by the way, is what I've come to under-
    stand Election to be, i.e., for reasons known only to God, He sets aside
    all firsts and chooses all seconds in the blessing of mankind.
    
    Thus, I thought Andrew better captured the point of this topic than
    you.  But, to the degree your statement in .14 is meant to emphasize
    the work of God in the lives of those whom He has chosen, then the
    point of this topic is made.  In other words, in trying to correct the
    error of this topic, you actually were able to reinforce the point of
    this topic.
    
    So, in summary, I took the basenote as an attempt to provoke discussion
    of how different our perspective in the flesh is from God's
    perspective.  God, after all, now sees (in the present tense) what we
    shall be.
    
    I think the intent of the basenote has been served, though perhaps not
    straightforwardly.
    
    /Wayne 

    >Okay, let me make myself vulnerable in expressing my opinion.
    
    A man after my own heart!

    >Jeff, you made the observation that, for whatever reason, we tend to
    >pay more attention to the disciples' pre-Pentecost lives than to the
    >their transformed lives as Apostles.  However, I took the basenote to
    >show that modern-day man likely would have rejected the men Jesus chose
    >to establish His church.  See Psalm 118:19-24 and Ephesians 2.

    That's right, Wayne.  I diverted the topic spawning a different
    discussion.
    
    >I thought the whole point was, in fact, to emphasize that what man sees
    >or otherwise regards as "foolish or weak" very often is the means by
    >which God chooses to reveal His "wisdom and power."  See 1 Corinthians
    
    I bet you're right. 
    
    >Thus, I thought Andrew better captured the point of this topic than
    >you.  

    I bet you're right.

    >But, to the degree your statement in .14 is meant to emphasize
    >the work of God in the lives of those whom He has chosen, then the
    >point of this topic is made.  In other words, in trying to correct the
    >error of this topic, you actually were able to reinforce the point of
    >this topic.

    Well, hurrah for topic consistency!!!  ;)
    
    >I think the intent of the basenote has been served, though perhaps not
    >straightforwardly.
    
    >/Wayne 

    I'm sure you're right.  But now I've got to open another topic related
    to my closely-related subject which has yet to be adequately discussed.
    Just kidding.  It obviously is not ready for prime-time considering
    the responses.

    jeff

    re: .14
    
        If the Apostles were to apply today for positions of leadership they
        would overwhelmingly be characterized as great leaders by virtue of
        the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives, their position and
        experience in appointed offices, and their performances in those 
        incredibly difficult, demanding, and downright dangerous fields of 
        endeavor.
    
     Jeff -
    
    I don't agree with this for three reasons.  First of all Jesus says
    "they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.(John
    14:14). If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As
    it is, you do not belong to the world, ... that is why the world hates 
    you. (John 15:19).  Therefore, the world will not recognize the
    Apostles as "Great leaders in appointed offices".  They will be the
    hated and rejected.  Secondly, The Spirit at work in their lives will not
    be seen by the world which is blind to things of God. "We have not
    received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God (1
    Corinthians 2:12)."  And last of all, the people in whom the Holy Spirit
    is most active in their lives are the meek.  Paul, one of the greatest
    Apostles, said "His strength is made perfect in my weakness, Most gladly
    therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ 
    may rest upon me. (2 Cor 12:9)." 
    
    
    Jill
    
    
    
    

    
    Well, Jill, as I understand it the whole exercise of the basenote is a
    fantasy designed to make a point in a special way.  Such exercises have
    their limitations but stories, fiction, or whatever have always played
    an important role in communications.  If you view my exercise in the
    same way as the basenote, though not nearly as fanciful, it does
    communicate a valid point.  And most importantly, IT EMPHASIZES THE
    APOSTLES POST-PENTECOST LIVES!!!!! :-))  
    
    jeff

    Jeff -
    
    I don't understand your reply.  My note was about the post-pestecost
    Apostles.  My note was based on the Word.  How can you reject it?
    
    Jill

    
    Jill,
    
    I'll get back to you on this. I'm tired.
    
    jeff

    Jeff you are correct I said "in ourselves" when in reality the correct
    preposition should be for ourselves.
    
    Nancy

    
>       If the Apostles were to apply today for positions of leadership they
>      would overwhelmingly be characterized as great leaders by virtue of
>      the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives, their position and
>        experience in appointed offices, and their performances in those 
>        incredibly difficult, demanding, and downright dangerous fields of 
>        endeavor.
    
	Hi Jill,  I'm less tired today so I'll respond to your comments:

>>     Jeff -
    
>>    I don't agree with this for three reasons.  First of all Jesus says
>>    "they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.(John
>>    14:14). If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As
>>    it is, you do not belong to the world, ... that is why the world hates 
>>    you. (John 15:19).  Therefore, the world will not recognize the
>>    Apostles as "Great leaders in appointed offices".  They will be the
>>    hated and rejected.  

      First off, my characterisation, like the basenote, is based upon
      an objective assessment of their qualifications which anyone, believer
      or not, would acknowledge.  Furthermore, to suggest that the Apostles
      and subsequent Christians would only receive hate from the world is
      off the mark, I think.  In Acts we see several accounts where the
      surrounding, unbelieving people held the Christians in high esteem.
          
>>    Secondly, The Spirit at work in their lives will not
>>    be seen by the world which is blind to things of God. "We have not
>>    received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God (1
>>    Corinthians 2:12)."  

      I disagree.  The qualities in the life of the believer, i.e. the fruit
      of the Spirit and its practical outworking - goodness, kindness, love, 
      etc. - are seen by the world (not universally, of course) and noticed. 
      Jesus talks about how our good works should be seen by the world 
      rather than hidden under a basket.  This is our witness to the world
      of Christ's power.
  
>>    And last of all, the people in whom the Holy Spirit
>>    is most active in their lives are the meek.  Paul, one of the greatest
>>    Apostles, said "His strength is made perfect in my weakness, Most gladly
>>    therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ 
>>    may rest upon me. (2 Cor 12:9)." 
    
>>      Jill
    
      Well, I'm pretty sure meek does not equal "weakness".  Nevertheless,
      there is a difference between acknowledging our own dependence upon
      God for all the good in our lives and seeing others acknowledge that
      good from an unbelieving and ignorant perspective.

      jeff    
    
    

    .26 Nancy,
    
    Thanks for the acknowledgement.  Does this mean you are no longer
    insulted, I hope?!
    
    jeff

    re: 14, 22, 27
    
    Ok, we heard from Jeff and me, anyone else?
    
    
    Jill

I took .0 to be how the author thought the apostles would be assessed in a 
secular context, for the spiritual task they spent 3 years with the LORD 
towards.  As such, it's bound to be pretty tongue-in-cheek, and more aimed 
at making us re-evaluate the worlds values, and how we let them pervade the 
church, than having a genuine reflection on the apostles themselves.

It is interesting that even after the resurrection, they had not taken on 
the immensity of the work and message that Jesus was bringing - as their 
ideas were still expecting the earthly kingdom promised through the prophets.

   "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord,
    wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
    And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the
    seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.  But ye shall 
    receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall 
    be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria,
    and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

							Acts 1:6-8

Jesus wanted people who were ready to listen and learn to follow.  Not just
leaders with their own vision and methodology.  The filling with the Holy
Spirit at Pentecost simply gave them the dimension which the world often 
thinks of as supplied by man's wisdom and skill.

The note title "If the apostles applied today for leadership....." was 
appropriate to the base note, which was an artificial scenario, putting the 
spiritual in a secular context.  However it feels rather inappropriate to 
me to transfer this to today's church, as it implies too much of the 
world's approach, again.  In an individual church context, leaders are 
recognised and elected, rather than applying for a post.  Even the pastor 
(generally, in the cases I can think of) is invited to preach with a view, 
and then voted on in the church as to whether he should be invited, rather 
than the impetus coming from his application to the church.  Obviously, it 
is known when men are available for the ministry, and the names which go 
forward are taken from those which seem suitable - the men are assessed by 
their appropriateness, before the LORD, by a prayerful church.

God raises up each man for his age.  The apostles were first-century church 
leaders.  To take them out of context, and out of their familiar framework 
(eg circle of recognised converts, churches, etc), and put them in any 
other time, assuming their instant adjustment to the culture, technology, 
etc, their rise to leadership in the spiritual world would depend on 
whether the church leaders were ready to recognise and accept what the  
LORD was saying through them.

I suspect that we would find some churches clinging to established forms, 
while other churches welcomed them with open arms.  there would also be 
many churches whcih would be split over the issue.  And I put 'churches', 
and not denominations.


							Andrew