Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I didn't say there were no more miracles. I said that 2 Cor 12:12 seems to suggest miracles accompany genuine apostleship. And as far as I know they did not accompany any of the names being tossed around here.
Again, let's define what an apostle is. What does he (or she?) do?
Also, please tell me the advantage to the church of designating someone an apostle. I've heard opinions of who might be an apostle, but nothing definitive. How do these opinions help anyone? What's the point, other than asserting an opinion about someone. I mean if a Christian teacher or leader lends guidance to the church at large, or helps spread the kingdom in a major way, are we required to call them apostles? If not why do it, give that the assessment is largely subjective (outside of signs and miracles.)
|
I do not see the point in designating anyone anything. Is it helpful to say Billie Graham was an evangelist? Why isn't servant of God sufficient? Though once you agree he was a gifted evangelist you would then look at his work differently. Prior to that you might decide that his approach to the gospel is not for you, but once you decide he was a gift given to the body to perfect the saints you might reevaluate his ministry with the hope of learning and imitating him.
But, I do see a very pronounced danger in teachings that are not based on the word of God but rather are based on the fact that this teaching has been abused or that we have come to a general consensus on this.
Rather I would say that if experience has shown you that a teaching can be abused, then as a mature Christian you are obligated to show much more prudence and forethought in discussing it. Once you realize a teaching can be used to damage saints, then you are no longer speaking the truth in love if you handle this teaching carelessly. This is why we keep knives away from small children.