Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
This is not how the discussion began or has been sustained. No one has pushed the need to label someone's work as "apostolic". This began in Post #1 with Igzy saying "The church is apostolic, meaning it's based on the teachings of the apostles. The church has believed that since the beginning. But the apostles are gone. Our apostle therefore is the Scriptures. Nothing more. Nothing less. Any other stance is reckless."
Our response was to this.
1. Where in the NT does it say that the gift of apostles is gone? (no one is disputing that the original 12 Apostles + Paul are gone).
2. Is church tradition of shying away from the term Apostle a valid basis for a teaching or shouldn't our basis be the NT?
3. We all agree that the NT is the teaching of the apostles. However, some of us want a NT basis to say that "our apostle is the Scriptures". What is the NT basis to say this?
4. Is requiring a NT basis for a teaching really a reckless stance? Isn't the idea that you could have a teaching without a NT basis the really reckless stance?
....
However, and this is the crux of the matter, it seems this thread has moved towards this point of discerning false teachers. This was my original burden in raising the issue of the two witnesses. My point is that at that time, during the tribulation, Christians will be forced to discern between the two witnesses and the false prophet and the antichrist.
...
So, to answer your question, will it really change anything if I consider that the false prophet or the antichrist is an apostle? Or if I discern that it is in fact the two witnesses that are the genuine article? It will probably determine ones fate for the next 1,000 years at best, and at worst their fate for eternity.
|
And I think that returning to a touchstone of the "historical" faith as taught by the apostles, recorded in the NT, and continually reviewed in a "current context" answers the whole thing.
In the first century, the core of the faith was not written down. It was being taught by word of mouth in an era in which what happened in the next town over might not be known for days. And the workings of a little religious sect might not be know of in a large city in all parts for quite some time. So the idea that there needed to be a way to know who was speaking to you to "fill in" the teachings was important.
And while the NT as written is not exhaustive, it is a core from which anything should spring. It is not "the apostle" but it is a touchstone against which any kind of teaching can be compared, whether from just another teacher or a self-proclaimed apostle.
So looking for another way to tell if the end-time "Prophets" are the Antichrist or the real deal should not be some special task that we need to gear up for. It should be more of the same. We should be keen to the truth at all times. We should not be swayed by grandiose claims and appearances. Besides, in this day and age, no one is going to perform a "miracle" that will be certified clearly as real vs just another Houdini-like trick. Another illusionist. But notice that there are many who fawn all over illusionists, so even an illusion done well gets a following.
Is requiring a NT basis for teaching a reckless stance? Seems to me to be the only one we have. If it is not square-on with the NT, are we to accept that the appearance of a miracle makes their alternate teaching sound? In other words, God's word changes because a guy with signs and wonders changes it? I suspect that any true apostles will simply speak with more authority inside of the confines of what is already there. Isn't that what Jesus did?
And last. One of the things that has caused me to tire of this forum is that I and others can make significant statements as a whole that paint one picture and get picked-apart on a small item down in the details. I know that those small items may be important. But I try to see whether those seem to alter how to read the rest rather than be read as altered by the context. In other words, does the detail drive the context or should the context drive the understanding of the details.
Back to the ignition of this thread: It does seem that there is difficulty arriving at any kind of clear word on what we could call an apostle today. But I do not see there being such an uncertainty in arriving at the "apostles teaching" no matter how we conclude on the continuance of apostles. The apostles taught and it was recorded. That does not make the scripture an apostle, but it is their teaching. And there is a succession of teaching of that from the first ones to this day. And if there are apostles today, they are not adding new scripture that disagrees with the old, so there is still a connection to what we have written. And we have a huge body of "commentary."
And in the end, it might be that for all of the concerns about what is and what is not an apostle, knowing how to accept or reject a teacher might be all the "rules" you need. Even for missing the little dark closet of the millennium (if Lee was right).