Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Right. But the corollary to that is, if they exist, how to you know who they are?
Are we just supposed to call people apostles who we think are apostles?
Or are we supposed to call people apostles who say they are apostles?
Another corollary is avoiding the problems of false apostles. If being an apostle is such a fuzzy matter, aren't we opening the door to false apostles and major damage to the Body of Christ?
This thread has made me even more skeptical that there are true apostles today. We can't even agree on what an apostle is. So how are we going to know one when he comes along? This is a practical issue, not a theoretical one.
|
I think Martin Luther was an apostle. I don't think it was necessary to "call him an apostle" to receive his teaching and to leave the Catholic church.
I think Hudson Taylor was an apostle. I imagine that many of the new converts that received his gospel and began to meet in church congregations had no idea about anything more than the fact that he brought the gospel to them.
Once again, I think the best way to know an apostle is by there fruit. We don't need to know someone is "an evangelist". If they do the work of an evangelist and have the fruit of an evangelist, then does it really matter if we call them an evangelist? Likewise, if you do the work of an apostle and have the fruit of an apostle, does it really matter if you have the title of an apostle?