What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

Yours was a reasoned response so I wanted to offer a response in kind.

So to the first point above..... there are recorded in the New Testament the mention of apostles who did not see the Lord in person. Only one is needed to dispel that idea so I offered Timothy. Yet, we find several other apostles mentioned: Silvanus ( 1Thess 2:6) , Ephaproditus (Phil 2:25), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7), Titus and others (2Cor 8:23).

So, when were these other apostles appointed and by who? They were appointed by the Lord Himself after His ascension. (Ephesians 4:7-11)

Drake

The Bible doesn't specifically say these men had not seen the Lord Jesus. However, I think the probability that they all had is low. It's doubtful the Roman brothers had been in the Holy Land while Jesus was there.

The "seen Jesus" portion of my post was not a major assertion, more of a footnote. I never claimed Lee was not an apostle with the authority of a Paul because he hadn't "seen Jesus." So I didn't really do the idea justice. Let me do that now.

It seems that everyone who was a true apostle or who wrote the New Testament was either someone who had followed Jesus (seen Jesus) when he was on earth OR someone who was closely associated with such a person. For example, Mark was associated with Peter and got his Gospel story from Peter. In other words, all true apostles likely only had 2 degrees of separation from Jesus himself.

Paul clearly showed some disrespect for certain so-called apostles (2 Cor 11:5). Why did he do that? He probably didn't think they really were apostles. Why? Because he knew they didn't fit the criteria. Possibly because he knew who had been with Jesus or was associated with someone who had, and he knew who could work miracles.

Your assertion that Jesus appointed apostles after the ascension begs the question of how we know who Jesus appointed. I don't think we can know that, so I don't think it's safe to assume anyone after the early apostles have that kind of authority. Certainly history has shown that latter-day people claiming apostleship have no evidence of such a gift other than the credulity of certain followers. This usually ends up being a problem. I think it is safe to say the Lord knows the Church needs more evidence from a so-called apostle that just that person's claim that Jesus appointed him.

Revelation says the church in Ephesus tested those who claimed to be apostles and were not. How did they do that? It's safe to say they didn't give them a test on "God's economy."

Finally, if Lee was an apostle he should have asserted that. Paul had no problem making the claim. But Lee was coy about it. To me that's evidence he knew he wasn't, and so had no business butting into the authority affairs of churches.