Apostles

[ZNPaaneah]

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.

And so are the ones who meet you at the door of your assembly, or help you find you way around. Or take time to talk and pray with you. Or teach — whether to adults or to children. Should I go on?

Do we need to define an apostle to get his help? Do we need to define an apostle to see and know charlitans, posers, frauds, or even just the overly ambitious?

Seems that living the Christian life has come to a stop for the purpose of hashing over a potentially theoretical point of theology for a purpose that we aren't even sure is relevant to us to know that well. Well, not to a complete stop. But it has been seriously slowed as we line up angels and get out the metaphorical pin. I have an opinion. And I stated part of it days ago. But it really isn't that important.

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.

I think the motivation is easy to understand. If you conclude that there are no such apostles these days then you would be able to reject the ministry of WL and others with little effort. If you have a set of criteria, then at least you have a check list you can use. However, if it were that easy to discern false apostles then why does the Body need the gift of discernment?