Someone will rail against this Temporary Ekklesia Theory, thinking it ridiculous that Jesus would not plan his church to be a perpetual body upon Planet Earth. This is ironic, of course, as the same person will go to a church that ignores a great many of the original teachings, and that features several new teachings, invented by people other than Jesus and his authorized apostles.
So by their words, they supposedly uphold the original, but by their practices, they depart from it. This is the (poor) position that they try to bring to bear against this Theory. They don’t realize what they are doing—or worse, they realize, and simply don’t care.
The fact of the matter is that it is impossible for them to replicate many of the original features of Jesus’ ekklesia—for many of them required interaction with God, who no longer powers such features. Even so, some of these they try to replicate (powerlessly) anyway, while others are strangely ignored under some inconsistent and seemingly-arbitrary reasoning.
Another tactic I have noticed is that of downplaying the original role of the apostles, so as to make it seem less a severe change that the church should have suddenly been without them from 70AD forward all these years. The more they can discount the knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and importance of the apostles, the easier their case for an ongoing church seems to them. So they insist on keeping going with a watered-down version of the original, telling themselves that it’s not watered down.
Then there are those who want to argue that the apostles are exceedingly important, but that they have since been completely and adequately replaced by their own writings, as found in the commonly-accepted canon of scripture. Obviously, however, the scriptures do not perform signs, miracles, or wonders in the apostles’ place. Nor do they travel about checking and teaching and correcting and rebuking as needed. It is hardly a serviceable substitution.