Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
I agree that this is the LCM's point, but that doesn't make it scriptural.
|
Actually, they think it is scriptural. They point to Paul seeming to give orders to churches as evidence an apostle can step in and take control.
So which is it? I'm sure if you start a thread titled "There are still Apostles but they don't have Apostolic Authority," then Drake is going to step in and argue with you about it.
So where are we?
- We can't agree on what an apostle is.
- We can't agree on the extent of an apostles' authority.
- We can't agree if there is only one kind or several kinds of apostles.
- We can't agree if the original 12 + Paul were fundamentally different.
- We can't agree how to confirm apostles.
- We can't agree if apostles still exist.
This problem doesn't just exist with us. It's one of the reason the Church stopped calling people "apostles," and have opted for more specific terms like "missionary," and "church planter," which do not carry the same possibility of confusion about authority.
It is the whole question of authority that is the problem. So it's similar to the local ground issue. Given an issue which has so much potential for affecting people, there ought to be some kind of general agreement. There is, and it is, generally, Don't call people apostles.