[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I see human logic at work here... You say that if there are not apostles today then there cannot be any gifts given. Why? Why can't there be some gifts given today? Doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition until the Lord returns.

No, I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by aron

Again you are imposing circumstances upon ours. If something happened once, it must be a necessity for all time. I don't see it.

No, I am not imposing anything. Try reading my post again.

Originally Posted by aron

And I don't see the slightest indication from these verses that apostles are required in perpetuity for the body to function.

I don't understand what you are saying. I don't understand "perpetuity". I don't even know if this is a response to my questions. Do you disagree that Apostles were given for the perfecting of the saints? For the work of ministry? For the building of the Body? Just as the gift of pastors was as well? If so, do you think that the saints were perfected at the time of John, or that the work of ministry was completed, or that the building of the Body of Christ was completed? If you don't, then based on what would you assume that we no longer need apostles?

Originally Posted by aron

When John wrote about testing those who say they are apostles, there were multiple claims among the fellowship (not only Paul and John and Peter, but ambitious Johnny-come-latelys) for this title. Just as Paul and John and Peter have departed, so have those claims receded to the "fringes" of christianity. Just because there may be some today claiming to be apostles doesn't mean that there must therefore be true apostles among us.

Pretty strange comment seeing that it is posted on "Local Church Discussions" an internet forum that could easily be described as having the mission to test the claim of whether or not WL is the MOTA.

Originally Posted by aron

Unless I see some compelling reason to find apostles among us I am wary;

Once again, you are not responding to what I said. I did not suggest a compelling reason to find apostles. Rather I said there is a compelling reason to test whether or not someone is an apostle. Discerning between false teachers and true teachers is clearly a compelling function in the NT. My reference to the Church in Ephesus is only one of many possible references that could be made.

Originally Posted by aron

from my contacts in christianity I think many are similarly wary.

Go back to Igzy's question. Just suppose the verse "God gave some to be apostles" describes not just Paul's time but is actually a requirement for all times. Suppose "You tried some who claimed to be apostles and were not" in the first century means that therefore we in the 21st century need to try and approve some who claim to be apostles and in fact are.

How do we go about such a task?

What do you think we are doing on this forum? Look at the threads. We recently had a lengthy discussion on Pray Reading and RG's book. This is what is currently happening on this forum, we are trying those that purporting to teach the truth to us to see if it is so. It is a difficult process. It requires that we can cut straight the word of God and apply the truth to the present situation. It is a spiritual exercise. But this is the task that we are doing. We are teaching how to do it by example. In this case I would say the key principle is to not add to or take away from the divine record. Also, I would add that just because there is pressure to drop the term and as a result many other Christians are shying away is also not a valid reason to teach this as truth.

Originally Posted by aron

I don't see anybody making much headway except the fringe sects with their exalted leaders. And I put the RCC there, too. I don't see the Pope as some "bishop-approved" apostle.

And if you could show from the NT that this was in fact the case it would be one more nail in the coffin. If you put the RCC with the fringe sects then I obviously do not know what you mean by "fringe" sects. I have heard a lot of comments made about the RCC, but "fringe" sect is certainly not one of them.

Originally Posted by aron

On the other hand, have you ever heard of the "Throne of James"? Have you ever heard of the "desposyni"? The speed in which the believers elevate some beyond their allotted portion is rather disconcerting, and echoes (for me) the original fall, of the original "Light bearer" (Lucifer) who presumed a place not his.

See also Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."

The NT talks about "lust of the flesh". Should we therefore forbid marriage (as the RCC and others have) as a response? Some people are prone to being an alcoholic, Paul said that if wine stumbles my brother then I won't drink wine. Why not create a teaching in the NT that since wine is a stumbling stone to some, we as a religion will drink no wine? Some groups do this, there is a famous OT example of this, it was part of the vow of the Nazarite, James gave laws concerning not eating certain foods. Yet Paul doesn't forbid wine. The abuse of wine doesn't change the fact that used properly it is good, which is why he recommended Timothy to drink a little wine. In Ephesians 4 Paul says 4:14 "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" A sail boat is designed with a keel. This keeps the boat sailing straight when the wind wants to blow it to the side. Without the keel you would only be able to sail in the direction the wind is blowing. With a keel you can sail in any direction you wish. The wind doesn't tell you which way to go. You are being pushed by the wind, that is not a reasonable response.

Originally Posted by aron

I think it is a fearful thing to presume a place not expressly given by God.

Yes.

Originally Posted by aron

How are we collectively to determine whether or not Joyce Myers or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or pastor Chuck Smith or whomever is actually an apostle?

I think I already answered this. Learn from our example on this forum. This is exactly what we are doing with regard to WL and others. This same process can be applied to the rest of them.

Originally Posted by aron

To me, the parable in Luke 14 seems equally Biblical, and timely, as Ephesians 4:11. When the Master gives a feast, take the last seat. Don't sit somewhere you don't belong. If anyone out there wants to sit in the seat marked "Apostle", go for it. I see no compelling reason we the christian polity should prop any of them up.

The question, at least for me, is not about propping them up. The question is "do I receive their word or not". LSM, WL and WN have a lot of publications. What are we to make of them? Are they the "pure word", are they healthy teachings, or should we reject them out of hand?