Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
My problem with giving [Lee] any significant marks in Bible exposition is that it would seem that he went at it with a goal to get a result, therefore (in hindsight) almost everything he said needed more than casual checking. His methods of Bible exposition seem too much like setting up experiments to prove or disprove something, then setting out to find only positive results, even by reinterpreting negative results.
|
To some extent we all do this; we find some verses which support our current fancy, and wave them in the air to show our theory/practice/obsession/interpretation is "biblical". All other biblical references which don't support our theory are, of course, ignored.
To get back to the subject of "apostles"... I was looking at what Paul considered as "marks of the apostles", in 2 Corinthians 12:12
NIV: "I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles."
I don't think Paul is being sarcastic here, even though he has just finished mentioning the 'super-apostles'...
Now, the LSM interpretation is that since there were apostles delineated in Ephesians 4:11 (and elsewhere) and it doesn't say that they were to be phased out, then the office of apostle must continue after Paul, John, Peter et al. There should be apostles (somewhere) today. Logical.
Then, when you ask them about the marks of a true apostle, about signs and wonders and miracles, they say, "Well, that was just for the first century. The age of miracles is over." Also logical.
So one age, "The age of the apostles" is not over, because the Bible doesn't indicate that it was supposed to terminate.
And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.
Got it? It's quite simple, really.