What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Drake]

Igzy>”It's a little weird that we have LCMers here defending the existence of latter day Apostles, yet denying that the Recovery believed that Lee's presumed Apostleship gave him authority over church”

Igzy,

I don’t believe I ever said that modern day apostles do not have authority according to the function of their gift in the ministry.

I just don’t except it the way you define it or frame the whole matter.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>”It's a little weird that we have LCMers here defending the existence of latter day Apostles, yet denying that the Recovery believed that Lee's presumed Apostleship gave him authority over church”

Igzy,

I don’t believe I ever said that modern day apostles do not have authority according to the function of their gift in the ministry.

I just don’t except it the way you define it or frame the whole matter.

Drake

Can you be more specific as to how a "modern day" apostle differs from the 12?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can you be more specific as to how a "modern day" apostle differs from the 12?

No because it is a false comparison.

We are discussing at the moment the existence of NT apostles and their being given as gifts by the Lord Himself in His ascension and their function. Clearly the 12 are distinct from Paul and all the other apostles Evangelical mentioned.

Thanks
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

No because it is a false comparison.

We are discussing at the moment the existence of NT apostles and their being given as gifts by the Lord Himself in His ascension and their function. Clearly the 12 are distinct from Paul and all the other apostles Evangelical mentioned.

Thanks
Drake

Do you agree that the NT is complete? That the "fellowship of the Apostle's" that we are to keep is already complete?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you agree that the NT is complete? That the "fellowship of the Apostle's" that we are to keep is already complete?

Of course the NT is complete. What a question!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course the NT is complete. What a question!

Yet, LSM had grand announcements declaring that the "interpreted word" was NOT complete until Lee published his set of commentaries.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course the NT is complete. What a question!

That is where you, Igzy and I all agree.

Since the NT is complete and we are to "keep the fellowship of the apostles" it puts the fellowship of the apostles above any present day apostle, as a result an apostle might have the authority to raise up churches and appoint elders, but if he steps outside of the bounds of the fellowship of the apostles his authority is trumped by the NT.

If we all agree with that then I think the three of us are all in agreement on the crucial points. From my understanding Igzy is happy to consider anything else a matter of semantics and for myself I still consider that the Lord gives apostles applies today.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is where you, Igzy and I all agree.

Since the NT is complete and we are to "keep the fellowship of the apostles" it puts the fellowship of the apostles above any present day apostle, as a result an apostle might have the authority to raise up churches and appoint elders, but if he steps outside of the bounds of the fellowship of the apostles his authority is trumped by the NT.

If we all agree with that then I think the three of us are all in agreement on the crucial points. From my understanding Igzy is happy to consider anything else a matter of semantics and for myself I still consider that the Lord gives apostles applies today.

ZNP,

It is possible that we agree on more than is apparent not just here in this note but elsewhere. However, I have learned to wait until I hear the whole argument because more often than not what sounds like agreement is quickly followed by Brother bashing at which point I realize I cannot agree with that even if I might agree on some points. It’s like you might agree with some points about racial bias, want to lend some support......then someone smashes a window, grabs a flat screen, and you regret having any sympathy at that point. A greater principle kicks in.

Drake

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you agree that the NT is complete? That the "fellowship of the Apostle's" that we are to keep is already complete?

What is the actual meaning when one utilizes the phrase "fellowship of the Apostle's"?
To any Christian if you said "fellowship of the Apostles" one would transparently refer to NT scripture.
In LC circles the phrase would tend to be more opaque than it would be transparent. What causes the phrase to be opaque is it could be used as what NT scripture says or as LSM's interpretation of NT scripture.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

What is the actual meaning when one utilizes the phrase "fellowship of the Apostle's"?
To any Christian if you said "fellowship of the Apostles" one would transparently refer to NT scripture.
In LC circles the phrase would tend to be more opaque than it would be transparent. What causes the phrase to be opaque is it could be used as what NT scripture says or as LSM's interpretation of NT scripture.

I mean the NT.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I just don’t except it the way you define it or frame the whole matter.

I didn't accept you to expect it.

Thus far, however, I haven't heard a compelling argument to believe that if someone claims to an Apostle these days I'm just supposed to let him come in and order my church around. That seems a recipe for disaster. Think for example of... the LCM movement!

I need evidence of Apostleship. Lee didn't have it. At best he was an ambitious teacher. He wasn't a true Apostle. If he was, he was the most scandal-ridden one in history!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I didn't accept you to expect it.

Thus far, however, I haven't heard a compelling argument to believe that if someone claims to an Apostle these days I'm just supposed to let him come in and order my church around. That seems a recipe for disaster. Think for example of... the LCM movement!

I need evidence of Apostleship. Lee didn't have it. At best he was an ambitious teacher. He wasn't a true Apostle. If he was, he was the most scandal-ridden one in history!

Igzy,

I would defer to Pauls argument in 2 Corinthians chapters 12 and 13. It is His speaking in us through the apostle.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I didn't accept you to expect it.

I know, spellcheck is my worst enema!