Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
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?
|
Right. You think. I think. They think. That's no basis upon which to allot someone authority over multiple churches. That my point.
It's enough basis to consider someone's message worthy of consideration. But it's no basis upon which to allot someone the kind of authority bestowed on Witness Lee, or Herbert Armstrong, or anyone like that. The fruit you speak of has made that clear.