Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Why not just accept the gifts that are given to the church. Don't label them.
If it is a gift, then it is a gift. If it is not, then it is not.
Even Martin Luther. Was he clearly an apostle? Who knows for sure. It depends on your definition. But he was a gift to the church.
|
I agree with this.
Quote:
|
We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.
|
This is why I don't like the simplified "apostles must still exist because the Bible doesn't say they don't."
That stance doesn't even bother to define an apostle, and so still leaves the door open for giving someone credit for having the authority of a first century apostle. All in the name of what seems to me misguided biblical purity.