Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>”Now, tell me again why you are right about apostles and 99% of the Church is wrong...”

This is a fallacy in argument... you cannot possibly know what 99% of the Church thinks.

Drake

And that is a weak cop-out.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And that is a weak cop-out.

It’s only a cop-out to you because you don’t know that 97.4% of Evangelicals agree with me that your argument is a fallacy.

82.5% of Lutherans and 89.5% of Methodists are pretty sure but won’t commit.

65% of Catholics would agree but they need to check with their parish first.

Pentecostals were more inclined to agree with you and not me but that reversed when they realized your assertion was not prefaced with “thus saith the Lord...”. However, a number of the Holiness groups said they would flip their votes back to you if you were willing to have your legs lengthened.

The Seventh Day Adventist are undetermined because the survey was taken on a Saturday.

Baptists weighed in at 65% against you but a number would not commit until they understood in the exact way you were baptized.

So all things considered Igzy, the majority of Christians agree with me that you engaged in a fallacy in argument. Now don’t ask me to validate that because that would be a cop out on your part.



Drake

[Ohio]

And you wonder why outside Christians believe stereotypes and speak so negatively of the Recovery.

[OhLordJesus]

What happens when we read and use Scripture in ways that are different from what God had in mind? When we no longer turn to God's Word in order to listen for God's own intentions, what happens is that even if we continue to use the Bible, we replace God's purposes with our own. We may use the Bible to underwrite and give authority to our own opinions or to the topics which interest us, or to criticize others with whom we disagree.

So, please beware of quoting Scripture without understanding God's own intentions.

I am watching Unlocking the Bible series by David Pawson from Youtube. It helped me to know the Bible better. Glad to share with all.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

It’s only a cop-out to you because you don’t know that 97.4% of Evangelicals agree with me that your argument is a fallacy.

Boy, you put some effort into that little piece of sarcasm. I was just matching your joke.

All I was saying by the 99% remark was that the LCM view on apostles is in the extreme fringe. This view includes their beliefs that apostles:

Have direct authority from God:

To hire and fire elders.
To interfere in the affairs of churches.
To define the meaning of scripture in such a way as members of the churches they control have little choice but to agree.
To judge that churches have become "rogue," effectively to "remove their lampstand."

It also includes their view that certain special apostles are "the ministers of age. (You forgot about that one. Well, it's part of their belief about apostles, like it or not, which by itself puts them in the fringe.)

So it is neither a fallacy nor a cop-out to point out that the LCM view on apostles is not shared by the vast majority of Christians or churches, which my "99%" argument was intended to point out, which I'm sure fair-minded observers understood. You as usual could not pass up the opportunity to turn something into a red herring, which I'm sure fair-minded observers also noticed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This view includes their beliefs that apostles:

Have direct authority from God:

To hire and fire elders.
To interfere in the affairs of churches.
To define the meaning of scripture in such a way as members of the churches they control have little choice but to agree.
To judge that churches have become "rogue," effectively to "remove their lampstand."

It also includes their view that certain special apostles are "the ministers of age. (You forgot about that one. Well, it's part of their belief about apostles, like it or not, which by itself puts them in the fringe.)

Thank you for itemizing their belief.

I want to number these to make it easier to discuss them individually:

1. Have direct authority from God:To hire and fire elders.

There is clearly scriptural basis for those who raised up a church to also appoint elders. However, the NT provides the criteria by which appointing should be done. As for firing the NT is very clear that you have to have at least 2 witnesses before you can hear a charge about an elder, hence no "apostle" would be able to fire someone on their own whim.

2. To interfere in the affairs of churches.

I suppose they refer to Paul's charge in 1Corinthians about the sinning man. However, you don't need to be "an apostle" to do that. His "interference" was based on Matthew 18 which does not require anything more than to be in the name of Jesus and to also have at least 2 or three in agreement. Once again, no apostle would have the right to interfere on their own whim.

3. To define the meaning of scripture in such a way as members of the churches they control have little choice but to agree.

Again, there is the scriptural basis that Paul's gift was to bring every thought that sets itself against God into submission. But it seems to me if someone is way off base, as in the MOTA doctrine, all you would need is a good backbone to stand up to them as well as being committed to the truth even if it got you kicked out.

4. To judge that churches have become "rogue," effectively to "remove their lamp stand.

I don't see the basis for this. No doubt if you see sin you are required to speak, as we are doing on this forum. If you are one with the Lord then "what you bind on Earth" will be what is bound in heaven. But again, this would need to be something that 2 or 3 agree on, then you have to tell it to the church (as the Blendeds did with Titus) and then if it doesn't hold water the church can reject it (as we have done on this forum).

5. MOTA -- The only scriptural basis I see for this is Diotrophese who loves the preeminence in the church and refuses those sent by John. This also falls into the category of the false brothers mentioned by Paul, those that came from James that intimidated Peter to not walk according to the truth, and the Judaizers.