Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
What has hit me most is the fact that at the end of the age we will have two genuine witnesses, sent by God, to share a message with the entire earth. By every definition presented so far on this thread these two will be considered "apostles". They will have the sign of the apostles. At the same time that they are ministering we will also have two frauds: the antichrist and the false prophet. These two will also perform signs and wonders. So it is very clear to me that at the end of the age this discussion will come to a point and the salvation of many will be determined by how they treat this.
|
What is never clear to me is how we can be clear that certain parts of Revelation and other apocalyptic revelations, which are by nature pictures, types, metaphors, etc., are intended to be read literally and which are to be read as pictures and metaphors.
And the typical answer is that if we think it could make sense literally, we read it that way, if it is does not, then we don't. We refuse to accept that even the somewhat commonplace language could be part of the metaphor.
Are you looking for a series of horses? Do you expect to see bowls in the sky pouring out all this stuff? Of course not. But since we can understand a literal resurrection of two ancient prophets appear as "two genuine witnesses." we insist that this must be literal.
But even if all that is true, what is it about having apostles, and looking for them, that benefits the church today? It seems that the focus on the individual leader is always the problem, not the solution. We get help from many sources. How many people today speak authoritatively in a manner that is square with the teachings from The apostles and hits us where we live today? Men (and women) who have become renowned, not for the size of the church they create, but the truth they speak. Some of them may be apostles. But we do them or us no service to speak of it in that manner.
This is not the era of the story-teller (the oral tradition) in which we continue to require the faithful retelling of what we otherwise do not have access to. We have the written word and an educated population that can read it. We still require those who give their occupation to the study of the word for our benefit. But while our education can makes us exceedingly foolish about how much we personally
know and discern, we
are able to see when teaching is going far from the source — the scripture. We can see the ridiculous extremes that Lee took so much of scripture. And even Nee. But we also are able to read through questionable teachers and pick and choose. That may be dangerous, not because we are exposed to error, but because we may not always discern the difference. Note the firestorm surrounding Rob Bell's
Love Wins and the polarized camps for it entirely or opposed entirely. And while I think both are wrong, I believe that it is probably better that many of us not be exposed to the controversial because we are not all equipped to make good judgments.
But even when facing a controversy like the one surrounding Rob Bell, do you think that people are able to decide between truth and fiction/falsehood? I may think that many of the people I meet with are excessively dogmatic about certain things. But I also expect that they will not be lead astray by a false teacher. (Or even a false prophet or apostle.)
Why do we need to focus on them? Does scripture? Or does it mention them a few times? Are we putting the gospel of Christ — the one Jesus proclaimed — out of focus to zero-in on a small thing? Not saying it is irrelevant. But is there any evidence that it should be consuming?
We argue about elders, apostles, clergy, hierarchies, denominations. But seldom do we focus on what we are commanded to do. At some level, even our reading of the 7 letters in Revelation 2 and 3 is so focused on dealing with the things we see as their errors. But they are commended for their works. They are told to persevere. To rise above the problems. Not to fight the problems. For example, the thing that Laodicea was asked to do was not get hot or get cold, but open the door. It was not to rethink their riches, but to refocus their attention. And I don't think it even said to cast out the Jezebel. Not saying it shouldn't happen. But it was not a directive to do that, but to be sure that you are not caught up in it.
So we are no longer the church of the ground. But we might become the people of the apostles. But based on what command? On an uncertain record about them being gifts to the church? On the telling of a specific church at a specific time to discern false apostles? On a reference (in types and figures) to two apostles/prophets rising in the last days?