ONENESS ONENESS

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>>Now to Bro. Masoner...
>>
>>Would then, according to your interpretation of Acts 1:22-26, the apostle
>>Paul should not have been able to be an apostle?

>I was illustrating that voting is one manner of selecting leaders. This is
certainly >not the same as saying it's the exclusive way to do so.

Oh my goodness! My turn for apologies here. I took a left, when you were
going right (or was it vice-versa?):-) I do sincerely apologize for the
incorrect assumption on my part.

And I really do wish I'd known! There actually is an even better response
toward the idea they were "voting" in Acts 1. But don't get me wrong, I do
not hold this against you at all. The English word makes it some what
deceptive to a cursory reading. When we think of "lot" we quite naturally
think of many. But the word in the Hebrew and Greek means something
completely different...

Unger's- "Lot...Gr. Lanchano, to cast lots, Luke 1:9: kleros, pebble, bit of
wood to cast lots with (Acts 1:26). The custom of deciding doubtful
questions by lot is one of great extent and high antiquity, recommending
itself as a sort of appeal to the Almighty, SECURE FROM ALL INFLUENCE OF
PASSION OR BIAS, and is a sort of
divination..."

Vine's Expository Dictionary- "Kleros denote(s) an object used in casting or
drawing of 
lots, which consists of bits, or small tablets of wood or stone (the
probable derivation is from klao, to break); these were sometimes inscribed
with the names of persons and were and were put into a receptacle or garment
(lap Pro. 16:33), from which they were cast, after being shaken together, he
whose lot first fell out was the one chosen..."

Manners and Customs of the Bible- #463- The Lot...The use of the lot, as a
mode of 
settling disputed questions, is very ancient...Among the Hebrews we find
it's use
sanctioned by Divine Authority...(Lev. 16:8, Num. 34:13, Josh. 14:2)... We
have no
information given in scripture concerning the mode by which lots were cast.
Among the 
Latins, especially where several parties were concerned, 'little counters of
wood, or of some other light material, were put in a jar (called sitella)
with so narrow a neck that ONLY ONE COULD COME OUT AT A TIME. After the jar
had been filled with water
and the contents shaken, the lots were determined by the order in which the
bits of wood, representing the several parties, came out with the
water...Sometimes again they were cast in the manner of dice.'..."

Hence, when we look at Acts 1:26, we note that the "their lots" the two
small tablets, each had one of the names placed on it, making two, therefore
plural, "lots." Then it changed to singular- "the lot fell on Matthias"
since his lot must have fallen out first...

Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and
he was 
numbered with the eleven apostles.

We know that the majority is seldom ever the right way (i.e. Mat. 7:13,
etc.). And that 
people judge by the outward, but God judges by the heart. Therefore, the
casting of lots, as the dictionary says, provides a method of selection-
"SECURE FROM ALL INFLUENCE OF PASSION OR BIAS."

Therefore, this brings us back to the question - where is any scriptural
authority for
selecting members into the ministry by a majority vote of fallible people?

So, you were absolutely right, and practically prophetic(?) :-) in your
statement- "The part about election just seemed to me to be an obvious hole
in the argument. You might take it another way and thank me for critiquing
your argument such that you can modify it and make it airtight ;-)"

hah-hah!!!!Bravo! Very good, Bro. Masoner, VERY good! Mat 5:9 Blessed are the
peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

And you are right, I must tell you - I sincerely appreciate your response in
your previous post, and I also thank you very much for the opportunity to
bring out another precious tid-bit about the word of God!

Thank you Bro. Masoner!

>BTW, I would also assert that we "do" have modern day apostles. I would
>count among them the great men we have been discussing in other threads,
>men such as Bros Arnold, Huntley, Stoneking, and others. I would also
>include Bro Teklumarian (or however you spell that name!!)

I guess I can't comment here, being unfamiliar with these individuals. I bet
I could ask some interesting questions though...

But, I think I've got enough questions out on the table already! ;-)

Which threads are you referring to? I am sorry that I don't have the time to
follow every thread here. And I'm quite sure I'm not the only one. There's a
lot going on around here!

>Richard "One Lord One Faith One Baptism" Masoner

Now, who couldn't say AMEN!!! To that??? ;-) Let me at 'em! ;-)

God Bless!

P.S.

Just one more thing, I really think I owe it to share with you the
following, lest I give out too strong a negativity about the UPC. This is
something I DID write to Bro. Mike E. If I have stepped out of bounds in
quoting it here, I do sincerely apologize up front, and pray he forgive me.
(But I really don't think he'll think it a problem. ;-) Tell me what you
think!...

-------

Please allow me to expand on this thought a little more. I feel the UPC has
made some very POSITIVE contributions in the work and office of
"governments." Are you familiar with the UPC book "United We Stand" which I
mentioned in my last email? It is a book
chronicling the development, and current state, of the UPC. In the back, it
begins listing many different outreaches, missions, works, WAP, etc. I think
these works are extremely commendable, and are of the HIGHEST QUALITY I know
of among Oneness
organizations.

I feel very strongly convicted that these "governments" have been elevated
to a level
higher than is scripturally correct according to 1 Cor. Chap. 12. From what
I've read, from books published by PPH, this was not the original intention
of these organizations, and in fact early Pentecostals were very pleased
with themselves for having shed such denominations.

The presumption that could be made is that I am resisting all authority, or
the powers that be, period. This would be a sad misinterpretation of my
convictions, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

I believe that the hierarchy ordained by God, in His word, has already been
ordered,
structured, and stated perfectly according to His divine plan, and that plan
is not being followed to the last jot and tittle by we Oneness peoples in
entirety. I believe, actually, therefore, that we need MORE structure and
authority!!! We just need it to be a soundly, undeniably, Biblical structure.

Can you imagine you or me, holding the differences we hold, when and if a
man walking
in the FULL power and demonstration of the apostles CLEARLY spoke to both of us
together the divine word of God as the apostles did? Do you think you and I
could disagree any longer, having been set straight, either way, or even
(though as yet unimaginably) toward a new and living way, in such a manner?

-------

God bless you all,
In Jesus' PRECIOUS NAME!

                                      \ | /
                                  _ _ _\|/_ _ _

                      May God Bless you! From Tom Raddatz
                   http://www.corecom.net/~tomrpp/watchman.htm

"That I may know him;... Not as though I had already attained, either were
already perfect:... I count NOT myself to have apprehended:... I press
toward the mark for the prize..." -Phil. 3:10-14. 
                                  _ _ _   _ _ _  
                                       /|\
                                      / | \