03 The Apostolic | Andrew Selley | This is Church

[@biancagriebenow2334]

I want to do God's work!!!!

[@biancagriebenow2334]

Very big eye opener 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼wow I'm so being fed listening to these services!!!!

[@joshreubenbezuidenhout7153]

Thanks Andrew! So good 🙌🏻

[@Jamesedwardkoch]

I would say that one could only be said to have the gift of prophecy if they prophecy something and it then comes true. And not something that others would bet on but something very obviously only from God.

[@four12global]

Thanks so much for connecting James. Should you wish to see more on what we believe about prophecy, kindly see our series 'Prophecy for All' : kzbin.info/aero/PLblBIDzmle6g_5LGDPmUCuffSB0e2STCf&si=EZdgv7tkSLm3OHw0 God bless!

[@Jamesedwardkoch]

@@four12global this is a meaningless response. Fortune tellers and star sign readings make mistakes and are not held accountable, prophets of God do not make mistakes.

[@four12global]

@@Jamesedwardkoch we believe prophecy is broader than foretelling the future. As outlined in Scripture, we value the gift as a gift which conveys God's heart by glorifying Jesus, and building up the person or church who receives a prophetic word. We do believe that certain prophetic words need to be tested. Kindly see here for more on what we believe the prophetic entails: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZ-cl32smryoZ6ssi=dXCfdtogwvZsfctr And here for testing words: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWa2oXyMnLeibJIsi=-XA5_2VvM57fbZON God bless you

[@JandL855]

I have multiple issues with this video. Andrew Selley is listed as the "apostolic leader" of F12 which in essence means he is defining his own role throughout most of this video. Essentially likening himself to Paul and the 12 Disciples. He further states that he wants a church that looks like the New testament church. Most of the chuches he is apostolically leading look nothing like the New testament church (Who were under constant persecution / had to meet in secret / risked their lives etc - Andrew himself would have been dead already as ALL the apostles listed in the NT were Martyred ) By his own definition of what church should look like he fails quite significantly. Also stating that the bible says there is ONE church, while introducing a new type of church and then implying they tehmselves are "doing it the right way" is a little dishonest to say the least.

[@four12global]

Hopefully, I can address some of your concerns. With regard to Andrew “defining his own role”, I can see how you find it problematic for an apostolic leader to be teaching on the role of the apostolic. I agree that if he defines the role of the apostolic in his own terms and not according to the clear pattern of Scripture, that would be very problematic. But that is not what Andrew is doing. He is doing his best to teach on the apostolic from a Biblical perspective. When we consider other scenarios, this is not that unusual. For example, we wouldn’t consider it to be problematic for a husband to teach on the role of a husband in marriage, or a parent teaching on the role of the parent in the family, or for a mother to teach on the role of a mom in the family, or a wife teaching on the role of a wife in marriage. And we find examples in Scripture of people doing this kind of thing all the time. For example, Peter taught on the role of an elder as an elder himself. Paul taught on financial giving toward ministers of the Gospel as a minister of the Gospel himself. While it may seem awkward, teachers of God’s word are called upon to teach on all matters in the church, including on those things relating to their own role. With regard to your comment that most of the churches Andrew is leading “look nothing like the New Testament church”, it seems that your assessment is that these contemporary churches are fundamentally different to those of the early church “Who were under constant persecution”. I agree that much of the Western Church is not currently facing the same kind of persecution that the Church in the book of Acts was facing (although, even in our generation we are seeing the tide quite rapidly shift in that direction). Having said that, as leaders, we have a responsibility to teach, train and equip God’s people to have the same devotion to Christ and his kingdom that the early church had, regardless of what tests, temptations or trials we may go through in our generation. The church has and always will be tested, whether by intimidation (persecution), seduction (temptation to sin), corruption (compromise on our convictions) or deception. It may be that the Church in our generation experiences less of intimidation and more of the other tests, yet we need to pass our tests and be a pure and spotless bride for Christ. I believe Andrew is helping the Church the best that he can to pass our tests in our generation. With regard to your comment that Andrew is “introducing a new type of church” - Andrew is actually trying to reform the Church back to the way that it was, back to God’s original intent, back to the ‘blueprint’ of the New Testament. He is not trying to introduce something new, instead, he is trying to bring the church back to the old ways, the first ways. He is trying to help purify the church where compromises and corruption have come in through the influence of modern culture. I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion. LH

[@JandL855]

@@four12global What a wonderful well thought out reply. I truly appreciate the time you have taken to type it out. With regards to the apostle preaching about the apostolic I accept your explanation. I agree with what you said that it is acceptable for an "apostle" to teach about the apostolic. Ultimately I still feel this is a little dangerous as human history has taught us that very few humans possess the restraint to define their own leadership roles without ultimately abusing that power. That said though, what you have said is fair and if Andrew (if I may call him that) does not abuse this power then he can define his role. (The truth is that I will always struggle to accept that he is an apostole in the same sense that Paul and the 12 were - they literally walked with Jesus and had a markedly different reaction from the crowds they interacted with than what Andrew gets) I do not agree with most of the rest of what was said. As someone who attends (and enjoys) f12 churches I do think f12 falls in the same trap most churches fall into. This is that they put forth a set of "beliefs and convictions" usually based on biblical principles. These beliefs tend to reflect the more comfortable beliefs. "offensive" and truly challenging messages are avoided or presented in a context that has a "way out" for the challenged. For instance a very literal stance is taken on homosexuals (an issue that few in most churches personally wrestle with) but quite a relaxed view on finances. (The members of the early Acts church sold ALL their possessions so that "no one had need" - Imagine how this message would sound in the modern f12 church - have you seen the cars we drive?) Andrew's finances sermon emphasizes enough comfortable approaches that those who have plenty (of which I am one) have many "ways out" This makes financial and business sense as you would drive people away in numbers if they followed the "blueprint of the early church" approach to money and possessions. "although, even in our generation we are seeing the tide quite rapidly shift in that direction)" This is just plain false. The Western church faces very little (if any) persecution. The real persecution exists in China, North Korea, The east etc. I think it would be dishonest to claim their persecution as our own. Ultimately my view is that F12 is a church that like Many other churches are trying their best to live out the great commission. My issue is that on both the f12 and JG website a claim is made that they wish that other churches take up f12's blueprint. (this is where my issue lies) Andrew Selly constantly hints at the fact that f12 is doing a good job of this while (I believe) playing it safe and only truly adopting this blueprint when it is fairly comfortable and not offensive . If you claim your blueprint is correct it MUST be very close to correct. In order to further this feeling he makes claims like "denominations don't last long (this is not accurate - most denominations have been around for 100s of years and have only recently seen declines) or that "there are virtually no good Christian resources out there (Really? Keller, Washer, Piper, Yancey, Chandler etc etc etc). The irony is that by what I would consider "my standard" f12 is doing a great job. But they are failing by their own standards while "selling" this standard as the "blueprint" That is a little problematic for me