The question continuationists must answer

[W2L]

Where is churchwide "division fixing" in the Apostle's job description?
Seems like a diversion from the real task at hand.

Paul addressed it all the time. Where is it not in their job description? Were they not sent to teach us what to observe? Why wouldnt they fix it?

 

[W2L]

There has always been "division". It is the Lord that unites us.

1 Corinthians 3:4-6
For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings? 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.

Paul said division is a work of flesh not spirit.

 

[W2L]

Again, where are these modern day apostles?

 

[Saint Steven]

Actually the bible contains doctrine too.

If our doctrines dont agree this proves they are not all from God

Well, you seem to agree with me then. Thanks.
If the Bible contains doctrine "too" (also), then the rest of the doctrine is of human origin (not all from God).

And because doctrine is a human attempt to sort out what they Bible teaches,
those attempts will vary, or even be in conflict; it is inevitable.

Those who expect that all doctrine will agree are the cause, not the solution, for division.
Are we a part of the problem or a part of the solution.

For some reason we don't see living out the fruit of the Spirit as the solution to so-called "division" (differing opinions on doctrine). We want others to fall in line behind us. I don't consider that to be Christian behavior. But then I may not have my "doctrine" right.

Philippians 2:3-4
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

 

[Saint Steven]

Paul addressed it all the time. Where is it not in their job description? Were they not sent to teach us what to observe? Why wouldnt they fix it?

Where is their job description written?

So, you are claiming that churchwide "division fixing" was in the Apostle Paul's job description? Did he succeed or fail? Was the church division-free when he went home to be with the Lord?

 

[W2L]

Well, you seem to agree with me then. Thanks.
If the Bible contains doctrine "too" (also), then the rest of the doctrine is of human origin (not all from God).

And because doctrine is a human attempt to sort out what they Bible teaches,
those attempts will vary, or even be in conflict; it is inevitable.

Those who expect that all doctrine will agree are the cause, not the solution, for division.
Are we a part of the problem or a part of the solution.

For some reason we don't see living out the fruit of the Spirit as the solution to so-called "division" (differing opinions on doctrine). We want others to fall in line behind us. I don't consider that to be Christian behavior. But then I may not have my "doctrine" right.

Philippians 2:3-4
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

If we had real apostles today we wouldnt have differing opinions of doctrine. Thats my point.

 

[Saint Steven]

Paul said division is a work of flesh not spirit.

Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?
Wouldn't parting company be a division?

Acts 15:39
They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus,

 

[W2L]

Where is their job description written?

So, you are claiming that churchwide "division fixing" was in the Apostle Paul's job description? Did he succeed or fail? Was the church division-free when he went home to be with the Lord?

Division is a work of flesh not Spirit which the apostles rebuked. You however seem to think modern apostles would not do the same?

 

[Saint Steven]

If we had real apostles today we wouldnt have differing opinions of doctrine. Thats my point.

On what basis is that the correct conclusion?

It is really just your opinion, right? And if you insist on it,
you are the cause of division. (acting in the flesh?)

 

[W2L]

Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?
Wouldn't parting company be a division?

Acts 15:39
They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus,

They didnt part company for long, surely not for hundreds of years like we see in todays churches.

 

[Saint Steven]

Division is a work of flesh not Spirit which the apostles rebuked. You however seem to think modern apostles would not do the same?

Since when did rebuking either "fix" the problem or make it go away?
There are opportunities for what you call division every day.
Was that not also true at the time of the NT Apostles?

 

[Saint Steven]

They didnt part company for long, surely not for hundreds of years like we see in todays churches.

Once again we agree. Paul and Barnabas had a division. (though short-lived)
Seems like we are making progress here.

Was the division between Paul and Barnabas of the flesh, or of the Spirit?

 

[W2L]

On what basis is that the correct conclusion?

It is really just your opinion, right? And if you insist on it,
you are the cause of division. (acting in the flesh?)

Im insisting that we have no apostles today. Churches today teach different doctrines as you yourself have said. Do real apostles teach different opinions?

 

[W2L]

Once again we agree. Paul and Barnabas had a division. (though short-lived)
Seems like we are making progress here.

Was the division between Paul and Barnabas of the flesh, or of the Spirit?

When they were divided, why didnt they create their own church denomination like the fake apostles do today?

 

[Saint Steven]

Im insisting that we have no apostles today. Churches today teach different doctrines as you yourself have said. Do real apostles teach different opinions?

You are "insisting"?
Once again we agree. It is only your own personal opinion.

An opinion that may differ from other opinions. Causing what you might consider to be "division" (horrors), which you claim is of the flesh, not of the Spirit. (repent?)

Why did Peter say this about the teachings of Paul?
Were the apostles teaching different opinions? (seems so)

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[W2L]

Since when did rebuking either "fix" the problem or make it go away?
There are opportunities for what you call division every day.
Was that not also true at the time of the NT Apostles?

Rebuking fixed the problem. You somehow seem to think that modern day apostles would allow division to grow and flourish like it does in modern churches.

 

[W2L]

You are "insisting"?
Once again we agree. It is only your own personal opinion.

An opinion that may differ from other opinions. Causing what you might consider to be "division" (horrors), which you claim is of the flesh, not of the Spirit. (repent?)

Why did Peter say this about the teachings of Paul?
Were the apostles teaching different opinions? (seems so)

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

No they were not teaching different opinions.

 

[W2L]

Paul was guilty of division when he preached against division? Thats basically what you are saying, but thats absurd.

 

[Saint Steven]

When they were divided, why didnt they create their own church denomination like the fake apostles do today?

Right. It seems that they missed a tremendous opportunity there.
That would have to wait for another time.

If it is any consolation, they both have churches named after them today.
Obviously a "fleshly" attempt to capitalize on the religious market, right?
To set up an institution bent on fostering fellowship and preaching the gospel.
An evil empire for sure. lol

 

[W2L]

Right. It seems that they missed a tremendous opportunity there.
That would have to wait for another time.

If it is any consolation, they both have churches named after them today.
Obviously a "fleshly" attempt to capitalize on the religious market, right?
To set up an institution bent on fostering fellowship and preaching the gospel.
An evil empire for sure. lol

Lets look at what paul says about that "empire"

2 Timothy 4:3 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,