Apostles

[OBW]

BTW.

Being an apostle was not like being Jesus during his earthly ministry. The real followers of an apostle were generally not following him around from place-to-place, but following his teaching word-for-word. Apostles weren't around to have people flock after them. They were to help churches be what they needed to be.

So we are in churches. We are getting help (hopefully) from various sources, both within the assembly and without. We may not even realize all the places that the external help comes from. Do you think that as churches grew that everyone there was hanging all over the apostle(s) whenever they came to town, or when they sent a letter? Probably not, or at least less and less over time. But the church still benefited. It gets to your teachers who have immediate responsibility for serving you. And they take the help and pass it on. The letter to Galatia eventually gets to Ephesus and Sardis. Some of the details may not seem immediately applicable. But the true teacher takes note of it all and is ready to use it as needed.

[ZNPaaneah]

No kidding. Funny how you leave out these 30 or so years of history when you make statements like, "I was in the LRC, what authority did I allot to WL? I cannot think of anything."

That's because what happened in the LRC in general did not affect me. I left Irving to go to Odessa, a home meeting that grew into a church in someone's home which then grew into a church in a meeting hall. I left when they were just unpacking the boxes for their first "book room".

I moved from there to New Hampshire where once again it was just a home meeting, only smaller.

A year later I flew from there to Taiwan for the FTTT where I stayed for the next 8 years. I lived in Taiwan even though my Chinese was at best rudimentary, so I didn't have any dealings with the book rooms. I did occasionally visit the Hall 1 book room but I could never find anything I was interested in.

I came back to the US in the Fall of '95 and had a very difficult two years before I left. So although I was in the LRC for 20 years, I didn't see what it was like in the US until the last 2. But even so, I didn't buy any LSM books during that time and we didn't use the LSM books for morning watch, we just used the Bible.

Some people say that my experience was unique, how would I know how unique it was? I speak from my experience, what else can I do?

[ZNPaaneah]

Apostles are mentioned. It is not a certainty that they continue on this day. But whatever they do or don't do, I would presume that they have been doing it for most of the 2,000 years without necessarily having any thought that they were such a thing. And most people have carried on as if it is not important to think about it.

So if we determine that there are some around, what are we supposed to do about it? Will it really change anything to discover that so-and-so is actually an apostle? It probably will change how closely I at least consider what he/she says.

But I doubt that Paul would simply say to just listen and accept. He would say to beware. And we are already doing that without adding "apostle" to the complexity of the analysis.

This is not how the discussion began or has been sustained. No one has pushed the need to label someone's work as "apostolic". This began in Post #1 with Igzy saying "The church is apostolic, meaning it's based on the teachings of the apostles. The church has believed that since the beginning. But the apostles are gone. Our apostle therefore is the Scriptures. Nothing more. Nothing less. Any other stance is reckless."

Our response was to this.

1. Where in the NT does it say that the gift of apostles is gone? (no one is disputing that the original 12 Apostles + Paul are gone).

2. Is church tradition of shying away from the term Apostle a valid basis for a teaching or shouldn't our basis be the NT?

3. We all agree that the NT is the teaching of the apostles. However, some of us want a NT basis to say that "our apostle is the Scriptures". What is the NT basis to say this?

4. Is requiring a NT basis for a teaching really a reckless stance? Isn't the idea that you could have a teaching without a NT basis the really reckless stance?

Igzy's initial post was on August 24th, 16 days ago. Yet no one has done a satisfactory job of answering these questions. This is not like we got all upset after 3 days about a lack of NT evidence, we have been patiently waiting for 16 days for Scriptural support for the statements in the first post. What they have done is shown that the NT does not say emphatically that the gift of the Apostles remains to the end of the age. Surely you would agree that this certainly not adequate Scriptural support to say that therefore it ceased. We have also demonstrated fairly convincingly that there were numerous other people who the NT considered Apostles (and also false apostles and also derisively "super apostles"). So the idea that the gift of apostle only referred to the 12 + Paul has been debunked if anyone held that idea. This thread did discuss a working definition for apostle as "a missionary" if you understand the missionary as one who was sent to raise up churches. Some asked that if there still are apostles since the 12 who are they, and we have suggested a number of viable candidates which no one has really attempted to debunk. I also pointed out that the two witnesses in the book of revelation in many ways fit the idea of an apostle in that they are clearly sent by God with a mission that is wider than a single church or locality (that was one of the working definitions that was originally posited). Some pointed out that the work that these two do is described as "prophesying". However, I pointed out that Paul and John, both Apostles, also prophesied. However, these two do not have the mission of establishing churches, so if you want that to be the definition, which I think has a NT basis, then you could safely argue that the two witnesses should not be considered apostles.

However, and this is the crux of the matter, it seems this thread has moved towards this point of discerning false teachers. This was my original burden in raising the issue of the two witnesses. My point is that at that time, during the tribulation, Christians will be forced to discern between the two witnesses and the false prophet and the antichrist. All four will be doing miracles, so I find that to be a poor yardstick to use. So if your concern is over discerning false teachers it seems to me that the example of the two witnesses is quite relevant to the discussion.

So, to answer your question, will it really change anything if I consider that the false prophet or the antichrist is an apostle? Or if I discern that it is in fact the two witnesses that are the genuine article? It will probably determine ones fate for the next 1,000 years at best, and at worst their fate for eternity.

[rayliotta]

That's because what happened in the LRC in general did not affect me. I left Irving to go to Odessa, a home meeting that grew into a church in someone's home which then grew into a church in a meeting hall. I left when they were just unpacking the boxes for their first "book room"...

You asked Igzy how this is a practical discussion and not merely theoretical, because you never felt WL's "authority" personally. Yet you yourself know that your experience was not the majority experience. So when Igzy talks about "apostles" exercising real, practical control over churches, why do you respond as if you can't understand where he's coming from? That's what I don't understand.

[ZNPaaneah]

I was going to ask you -- after all, you did attribute it to him?

You asked Igzy how this is a practical discussion and not merely theoretical, because you never felt WL's "authority" personally. Yet you yourself know that your experience was not the majority experience. So when Igzy talks about "apostles" exercising real, practical control over churches, why do you respond as if you can't understand where he's coming from? That's what I don't understand.

I worked for LSM for many years, I went to almost every life study training either in Anaheim, or Irving. I worked in the fttt for many years. I lived in 6 diff localities and have visited more than 20 other localities during that time. Why wouldn't my experience be relevant?

[awareness]

1. Where in the NT does it say that the gift of apostles is gone? (no one is disputing that the original 12 Apostles + Paul are gone).
2. Is church tradition of shying away from the term Apostle a valid basis for a teaching or shouldn't our basis be the NT?
3. We all agree that the NT is the teaching of the apostles.Bro Mike will prolly hate this one ; thinking I always wax tangential from the topic.

Have you/we even considered that there may not be any certainty concerning apostles today?

I receive teachings from hundreds of different sources. But I don't need to elevate any of them, or endow them with some special authority.

A Church of Christ sister just recently revealed to me that for as far back as she can remember she's been looking for some authority to hook up to, but hasn't found it.

When I asked why she felt she needed an intermediary she was stunned at why she had never asked herself that question.

All her talk is : "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, is everything, and we depend only upon Him," but here she is looking for an intermediary authority.

Is that why we're so concerned about modern day apostles? Is our inner child guiding us? looking for a security blanket?

Thirty years ago I walked out of the local church because of the apostle thing ; that Lee was the apostle of the age.

I haven't needed an apostle ever since. Paul claimed to be apostle, but he also said he was a wretch.

Apostles? Thanks but no thanks. We're equals or we hint talking any more. And that goes for any of the apostles, if I could have met them.

If I need an answer, I might take a look in a hundred different places ... but ultimately I'm going to God.

And boy would I have lots to say to the self proclaimed apostle Saul. He might have been an apostle, but Paul was a very vexed man, with advertised issues, and even that mysterious thorn in his side. Paul was a thorny man ... we would have been equals.

[Ohio]

If I need an answer, I might take a look in a hundred different places ... but ultimately I'm going to God.

Praise God! Hallelujah! Hosanna in the highest!

[rayliotta]

I worked for LSM for many years, I went to almost every life study training either in Anaheim, or Irving. I worked in the fttt for many years. I lived in 6 diff localities and have visited more than 20 other localities during that time. Why wouldn't my experience be relevant?

Not saying it isn't.

[Cal]

Sorry for upsetting you, Igzy. I thought I was challenging your posts. Isn't that what we do on this forum? That's what happens to my posts, anyways, and I don't think you have "got it" any worse than I have in the past. Unfortunately, forums get heated at times, and I apologize for "picking on you."

In the absence of new posts directed my way, this topic probably has heard enough from me. I do appreciate what has been shared though. It's a difficult topic with huge differences in viewpoints. The Lord knows my heart too, and this is one topic that has troubled me for a long time.

Thank you, Ohio. What's hurt me most is us not getting along. But honestly, I've felt lately that you have been not only challenging my posts, but my integrity. When you call the belief that apostles don't exist today "convenient" that implies an ill-motive in the holder of that belief. And the sarcastic comment about your friend with the apostolic authority implied I wield an intolerance that I in fact do not hold.

When I use the word "misguided" I don't mean a bad heart, I simply mean "mistaken" or "out of balance."

[ZNPaaneah]

Is that why we're so concerned about modern day apostles? Is our inner child guiding us? looking for a security blanket?

I do not view an apostle as having some kind of intermediary authority. If the Lord sends someone out to do a task, then they have been sent with whatever authority is necessary to accomplish that task because their head is covered with the Lord's authority. I sat in Houston and listened as RG shared on and developed his theories on WL being the MOTA. I listened with respect that I think was due to RG, but I was always somewhat bemused at what the "great revelation" he felt he had was.

So what authority was necessary to teach the Bible and the Life Study trainings? I don't believe God would ever give someone the authority to silence their critics, the Lord said that if they treated Him this way they would treat us worse as the servant is not above the master. Paul was always dealing with critics. So in my mind RG's teaching was irrelevant. Regardless of what is what, WL's teaching would never be elevated to the level of scripture, that thought was never even contemplated by me until I heard it on this forum. Therefore, I continued to treat WL as I had prior to RG, I wanted to learn how to read the Bible for myself, when he shared on a verse I went to the verse to see if I could get into it. LS Trainings were an excuse to focus on one book of the Bible for a few months.

[ZNPaaneah]

Not saying it isn't.

In Post #254 you said "You asked Igzy how this is a practical discussion and not merely theoretical, because you never felt WL's "authority" personally. Yet you yourself know that your experience was not the majority experience. So when Igzy talks about "apostles" exercising real, practical control over churches, why do you respond as if you can't understand where he's coming from? That's what I don't understand."

To which I responded that I was speaking from my own experience, why wouldn't my experience be relevant.

To which you respond that you aren't saying my experience isn't relevant.

So then, what are you saying?

[Cal]

I worked for LSM for many years, I went to almost every life study training either in Anaheim, or Irving. I worked in the fttt for many years. I lived in 6 diff localities and have visited more than 20 other localities during that time. Why wouldn't my experience be relevant?

You seemed to be offering your personal experience as an example of how most LRCers viewed Lee. But you are manifestly an exception, so not a great example of the typical LRCers beliefs about Lee. Most at least implicitly thought of him as an apostle. Many thought he was right up there with Paul.

[Cal]

1. Where in the NT does it say that the gift of apostles is gone? (no one is disputing that the original 12 Apostles + Paul are gone).

Because one can argue that apostleship includes the power to establish the faith, and the faith cannot be further established. Therefore the office the early apostles had can no longer exist.

2. Is church tradition of shying away from the term Apostle a valid basis for a teaching or shouldn't our basis be the NT?
Shying away from using the term apostle is a prudent move given the confusion than can be caused by using it. The Bible doesn't require us to use specific terms, otherwise we would be required to call all church-administered pot-luck dinners "love feasts."

Again, I'm not denying that certain apostolic gifts still exist. I'm suggesting that using the title apostle is confusing because there are clearly two uses of it in the NT, the general gift of being a sent one, and the office of apostle, which was only held by a select handful which are all gone and cannot be repeated, in part because essential requirements were that they had seen the Lord Jesus and been witnesses to the resurrection.

[ZNPaaneah]

You seemed to be offering your personal experience as an example of how most LRCers viewed Lee. But you are manifestly an exception, so not a great example of the typical LRCers beliefs about Lee. Most at least implicitly thought of him as an apostle. Many thought he was right up there with Paul.

No one should make more of my testimony than it is. My personal experience in the LRC

[awareness]

Regardless of what is what, WL's teaching would never be elevated to the level of scripture, that thought was never even contemplated by me until I heard it on this forum. Therefore, I continued to treat WL as I had prior to RG,Maybe you've told it and I don't remember. Between what years were you in the local church?

And RG taught that Lee was the minister of the age? What was that to you? Didn't that imply that Lee was something special?

[UntoHim]

Again, I'm not denying that certain apostolic gifts still exist. I'm suggesting that using the title apostle is confusing because there are clearly two uses of it in the NT, the general gift of being a sent one, and the office of apostle, which was only held by a select handful which are all gone and cannot be repeated, in part because essential requirements were that they had seen the Lord Jesus and been witnesses to the resurrection.

Interesting thought here... "gift" versus "office". Not sure I ever thought that there was an office of "apostle". I believe that the only offices in the Church are those of Elder and Deacon. When the apostle Paul said "he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists.." it seems to me he may have been referring to extra local church functions. Today the modern term may be "para church ministries". I really think Igzy is on to something here.:idea: This may be the answer to our dilemma - the "office" of apostle has passed away with the original apostles, but we still have the gifts. "He gave gifts to men" and "according to the measure of Christ's gift" seems to fit in with this notion.

So I think this would follow along with the terms "prophets" and "evangelists". In some Christian circles these two are considered positions or offices, but it seems that these may better considered as "gifts". Certainly there are those who have been given the gift of evangelism and those who have been given the gift of prophesy (careful on this one!) Of course none of these two (prophet or evangelist) carries the weight of the apostles authority, so this makes the term apostle more of a sticky wicket for us to deal with. So if there are those with "an apostolic gift", what sort of authority or "extra local" power should/could they have? If we consider that apostle is a gift and not an office are we still back at square one? Darn! I thought at the beginning of this post I (actually Igzy) was on to something. Now I'm not sure.

[Ohio]

Thank you, Ohio. What's hurt me most is us not getting along. But honestly, I've felt lately that you have been not only challenging my posts, but my integrity. When you call the belief that apostles don't exist today "convenient" that implies an ill-motive in the holder of that belief. And the sarcastic comment about your friend with the apostolic authority implied I wield an intolerance that I in fact do not hold.

When I use the word "misguided" I don't mean a bad heart, I simply mean "mistaken" or "out of balance."

Sorry again. We do have some miscommunication to address. You misinterpreted me challenging your integrity as an "ill-motive," and I misinterpreted your "misguided" comment.

How about we wipe the slate clean and start fresh? I apologize for for all the posts that hurt you. Friends should be allowed to disagree, and have a "fair fight," but some of my sarcasm crossed the line. Please forgive me.

[Ohio]

Again, I'm not denying that certain apostolic gifts still exist. I'm suggesting that using the title apostle is confusing because there are clearly two uses of it in the NT, the general gift of being a sent one, and the office of apostle, which was only held by a select handful which are all gone and cannot be repeated, in part because essential requirements were that they had seen the Lord Jesus and been witnesses to the resurrection.

I think this introduces a new thought into the discussion. I agree there seems to be "the general gift of being a sent one, and the office of an apostle." Paul and the Twelve held the office of the apostle, while Epaphroditus may have had the general gift of the apostle.

When we consider the church, most agree there are two offices, elder and deacon. But, when we consider the body of Christ, are there now 5 offices: apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd and teacher? I believe this is an area of uncertainty that was definitely exploited by WL.

Do the "offices" of the body outrank the "offices" of the church? WL certainly thought so. The RCC also thought so. WL claimed the apostleship based on his work, and then bull-dozed many elders and deacons of LC's. He felt justified by scripture. Still today, the role of LC elders is little more than franchise management. WL even went on record saying that elders had local responsibilities like determining the times of meeting. That to me is a church office effectively neutered of any real responsibility.

[Cal]

Sorry again. We do have some miscommunication to address. You misinterpreted me challenging your integrity as an "ill-motive," and I misinterpreted your "misguided" comment.

How about we wipe the slate clean and start fresh? I apologize for for all the posts that hurt you. Friends should be allowed to disagree, and have a "fair fight," but some of my sarcasm crossed the line. Please forgive me.

Forgive me as well. Great idea, you got it! :)

[OBW]

This is not how the discussion began or has been sustained. No one has pushed the need to label someone's work as "apostolic". This began in Post #1 with Igzy saying "The church is apostolic, meaning it's based on the teachings of the apostles. The church has believed that since the beginning. But the apostles are gone. Our apostle therefore is the Scriptures. Nothing more. Nothing less. Any other stance is reckless."

Our response was to this.

1. Where in the NT does it say that the gift of apostles is gone? (no one is disputing that the original 12 Apostles + Paul are gone).

2. Is church tradition of shying away from the term Apostle a valid basis for a teaching or shouldn't our basis be the NT?

3. We all agree that the NT is the teaching of the apostles. However, some of us want a NT basis to say that "our apostle is the Scriptures". What is the NT basis to say this?

4. Is requiring a NT basis for a teaching really a reckless stance? Isn't the idea that you could have a teaching without a NT basis the really reckless stance?

....

However, and this is the crux of the matter, it seems this thread has moved towards this point of discerning false teachers. This was my original burden in raising the issue of the two witnesses. My point is that at that time, during the tribulation, Christians will be forced to discern between the two witnesses and the false prophet and the antichrist.

...

So, to answer your question, will it really change anything if I consider that the false prophet or the antichrist is an apostle? Or if I discern that it is in fact the two witnesses that are the genuine article? It will probably determine ones fate for the next 1,000 years at best, and at worst their fate for eternity.And I think that returning to a touchstone of the "historical" faith as taught by the apostles, recorded in the NT, and continually reviewed in a "current context" answers the whole thing.

In the first century, the core of the faith was not written down. It was being taught by word of mouth in an era in which what happened in the next town over might not be known for days. And the workings of a little religious sect might not be know of in a large city in all parts for quite some time. So the idea that there needed to be a way to know who was speaking to you to "fill in" the teachings was important.

And while the NT as written is not exhaustive, it is a core from which anything should spring. It is not "the apostle" but it is a touchstone against which any kind of teaching can be compared, whether from just another teacher or a self-proclaimed apostle.

So looking for another way to tell if the end-time "Prophets" are the Antichrist or the real deal should not be some special task that we need to gear up for. It should be more of the same. We should be keen to the truth at all times. We should not be swayed by grandiose claims and appearances. Besides, in this day and age, no one is going to perform a "miracle" that will be certified clearly as real vs just another Houdini-like trick. Another illusionist. But notice that there are many who fawn all over illusionists, so even an illusion done well gets a following.

Is requiring a NT basis for teaching a reckless stance? Seems to me to be the only one we have. If it is not square-on with the NT, are we to accept that the appearance of a miracle makes their alternate teaching sound? In other words, God's word changes because a guy with signs and wonders changes it? I suspect that any true apostles will simply speak with more authority inside of the confines of what is already there. Isn't that what Jesus did?

And last. One of the things that has caused me to tire of this forum is that I and others can make significant statements as a whole that paint one picture and get picked-apart on a small item down in the details. I know that those small items may be important. But I try to see whether those seem to alter how to read the rest rather than be read as altered by the context. In other words, does the detail drive the context or should the context drive the understanding of the details.

Back to the ignition of this thread: It does seem that there is difficulty arriving at any kind of clear word on what we could call an apostle today. But I do not see there being such an uncertainty in arriving at the "apostles teaching" no matter how we conclude on the continuance of apostles. The apostles taught and it was recorded. That does not make the scripture an apostle, but it is their teaching. And there is a succession of teaching of that from the first ones to this day. And if there are apostles today, they are not adding new scripture that disagrees with the old, so there is still a connection to what we have written. And we have a huge body of "commentary."

And in the end, it might be that for all of the concerns about what is and what is not an apostle, knowing how to accept or reject a teacher might be all the "rules" you need. Even for missing the little dark closet of the millennium (if Lee was right).

[Cal]

If we consider that apostle is a gift and not an office are we still back at square one? Darn! I thought at the beginning of this post I (actually Igzy) was on to something. Now I'm not sure.

This wasn't an original thought of mine. I got it from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700) (which I highly recommend. His thoughts on the Trinity are excellent.)

Actually, I think there may be something to it. Someone could have the gift of eldership without the office. Likewise someone could have an apostolic gift without an apostolic office. The office give extra authority in the body. These days the office could be non-extant, while the gift remains.

I'm not sure evangelist, shepherd and teacher had or have corresponding offices. These may just be gifts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Maybe you've told it and I don't remember. Between what years were you in the local church?

And RG taught that Lee was the minister of the age? What was that to you? Didn't that imply that Lee was something special?

I came into the church in the Spring of '78 and left the same weekend that WL died.

In the Spring of 1981 RG began sharing something that ultimately congealed into his MOTA teaching. It started with the concept that if an apostle is a sent one, and that anyone who is a "sent one" is an apostle then surely WL is an apostle. This would receive a response from some as though this was some great, and deep truth. To me it was "yeah, so what?" But not disrespectfully. He then added to this the verse about how "you owe me even your own life" and started talking about how we owed WL. My response to that was "what are you talking about", but of course I never stood up and said that, more of a keep that to yourself response. Finally, he would say something that I felt was stupid, something to the effect that even if you don't know what you are doing, the safe choice is to follow WL. My response to that was that if you don't know what you are doing, that is the issue. Solve that problem. But all of it seemed contrived to me, he seemed to feel he had some great and deep revelation, and to me it was nothing but foolishness.

In June I went to Irving to build the meeting hall and everything changed. We worked 16 hour days, and we worked 7 days a week. Taking time off to go to the meeting was discouraged. I ignored that and went to the Lord's day meeting. I was asked directly to stop going, but again I just ignored that. My feeling was I'm a volunteer, if you want to send me back to Houston because I am only giving you 100 hours a week on the jobsite instead of 108 go ahead. However, while there I never heard anything more of this teaching by RG.

18 months later we had the Peter training in Irving and immediately after that I moved to Odessa, which was a home meeting at the time. Again, while in Odessa I never heard anything more of RG's teaching or the teaching of the MOTA. I spent one year in New Hampshire in a situation with an even smaller home meeting. Then I went to the FTTT.

I don't really recall ever hearing anything of the teaching after leaving Houston, but I may have heard the term "Minister of the Age" prior to coming to this forum. While in Taiwan I was forced to listen to meetings through translators, so you can miss a lot of what is going on.

[ZNPaaneah]

Of course none of these two (prophet or evangelist) carries the weight of the apostles authority, so this makes the term apostle more of a sticky wicket for us to deal with.

Ah, bringing in Cricket terms here, quite subtle, since we all know that the left handed googly is called "the Chinaman". Touche.

[ZNPaaneah]

Besides, in this day and age, no one is going to perform a "miracle" that will be certified clearly as real vs just another Houdini-like trick.

I consider this concept to be very dangerous, and you are now the second poster on this thread to express it. We all know that the False prophet, and Antichrist will be performing miracles. We also know that the two witnesses will also be performing miracles. What we don't know is if "this day and age" is their day and age. For all we know, they could pop up on the news tomorrow.

To me this concept is like having the third 100 year flood in ten years. It is time to change your concept. You are asking to be blindsided with this concept.

[ZNPaaneah]

Is requiring a NT basis for teaching a reckless stance? Seems to me to be the only one we have. If it is not square-on with the NT, are we to accept that the appearance of a miracle makes their alternate teaching sound? In other words, God's word changes because a guy with signs and wonders changes it? I suspect that any true apostles will simply speak with more authority inside of the confines of what is already there. Isn't that what Jesus did?

Well said.:thumbsup:

[ZNPaaneah]

And last. One of the things that has caused me to tire of this forum is that I and others can make significant statements as a whole that paint one picture and get picked-apart on a small item down in the details. I know that those small items may be important. But I try to see whether those seem to alter how to read the rest rather than be read as altered by the context. In other words, does the detail drive the context or should the context drive the understanding of the details.


Personally I hate mosquitos. I know that most of God's creatures are good, but I still can't figure out what the deal is with mosquitos.

[OBW]

I consider this concept to be very dangerous, and you are now the second poster on this thread to express it. We all know that the False prophet, and Antichrist will be performing miracles. We also know that the two witnesses will also be performing miracles. What we don't know is if "this day and age" is their day and age. For all we know, they could pop up on the news tomorrow.

To me this concept is like having the third 100 year flood in ten years. It is time to change your concept. You are asking to be blindsided with this concept.I'm not sure that I follow. I am merely saying that looking for signs and wonders in a day when it is commonplace to create the illusion of the miraculous makes the testing almost impossible. So we need a different approach.

Yes, assuming that the part about the False prophet, Antichrist, and two witnesses are intended to be literal and not yet another sign to be interpreted, we will have a problem.

And actually, I begin to wonder whether the whole premise that these charges to test apostles was intended to be for the "average Christian" is a valid thought. Are these clearly stated to everyone? Not everything in the NT is. We have kept it and called it scripture. But is/was all of it written for the general consumption of the people? I note that Paul wrote specifically to Timothy a couple of times. And some of the more direct words he gave on checking out teachers, elders, etc. were in those letters. Yes. There is some in Thessalonians. But it does seem evident that even as Paul wrote, he did not have the concept that everyone was an elder or leader. Or that everything he wrote was about everyone. Some of it is very pointedly at the leadership.

This does not answer any question. But I believe that it does make the question even more problematic if we are presuming that everyone is supposed to be figuring out the False prophet on their own.

[OBW]

Personally I hate mosquitos. I know that most of God's creatures are good, but I still can't figure out what the deal is with mosquitos.Huh?? What are you talking about?

[ZNPaaneah]

Huh?? What are you talking about?

one of those little things that annoy me. What were you talking about?

[ZNPaaneah]

I'm not sure that I follow. I am merely saying that looking for signs and wonders in a day when it is commonplace to create the illusion of the miraculous makes the testing almost impossible. So we need a different approach.

Yes, assuming that the part about the False prophet, Antichrist, and two witnesses are intended to be literal and not yet another sign to be interpreted, we will have a problem.

And actually, I begin to wonder whether the whole premise that these charges to test apostles was intended to be for the "average Christian" is a valid thought. Are these clearly stated to everyone? Not everything in the NT is. We have kept it and called it scripture. But is/was all of it written for the general consumption of the people? I note that Paul wrote specifically to Timothy a couple of times. And some of the more direct words he gave on checking out teachers, elders, etc. were in those letters. Yes. There is some in Thessalonians. But it does seem evident that even as Paul wrote, he did not have the concept that everyone was an elder or leader. Or that everything he wrote was about everyone. Some of it is very pointedly at the leadership.

This does not answer any question. But I believe that it does make the question even more problematic if we are presuming that everyone is supposed to be figuring out the False prophet on their own.

Yes, I think the record in the NT is consistent, we should know the truth, and be able to discern the truth. As for miracles the NT never put any trust in those that sought them, wanted to see them, or followed the Lord because He did them.

On the contrary, if you put the truth up first, and then realize that the cross is a narrow way, rejecting the flesh, then I think it will be a simple matter to discern the genuine witnesses from the false. However, if you don't know the truth to begin with you will be in a very difficult position at that point.

As for "the average Christian" I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't want to assume the worst, so I hope you can clarify that expression.

[awareness]

Yes, I think the record in the NT is consistent, we should know the truth, and be able to discern the truth. As for miracles the NT never put any trust in those that sought them, wanted to see them, or followed the Lord because He did them.

On the contrary, if you put the truth up first, and then realize that the cross is a narrow way, rejecting the flesh, then I think it will be a simple matter to discern the genuine witnesses from the false. However, if you don't know the truth to begin with you will be in a very difficult position at that point.

As for "the average Christian" I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't want to assume the worst, so I hope you can clarify that expression.Seems to me that we're squabbling over matters in thin air ....

[rayliotta]

In Post #254 you said "You asked Igzy how this is a practical discussion and not merely theoretical, because you never felt WL's "authority" personally. Yet you yourself know that your experience was not the majority experience. So when Igzy talks about "apostles" exercising real, practical control over churches, why do you respond as if you can't understand where he's coming from? That's what I don't understand."

To which I responded that I was speaking from my own experience, why wouldn't my experience be relevant.

To which you respond that you aren't saying my experience isn't relevant.

So then, what are you saying?


I'm going to defer to Igzy here --

You seemed to be offering your personal experience as an example of how most LRCers viewed Lee. But you are manifestly an exception, so not a great example of the typical LRCers beliefs about Lee. Most at least implicitly thought of him as an apostle. Many thought he was right up there with Paul.

[rayliotta]

No one should make more of my testimony than it is. My personal experience in the LRC

Yet reading your post 225, can't you see how we might think you were applying your experience more broadly than that?

[OBW]

As for "the average Christian" I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't want to assume the worst, so I hope you can clarify that expression.Actually, from where I sit, the worst would be a church age in which every Christian is expected to be fully grounded in the details of correct theology. Who must each take upon themselves the job of ferreting out bad teachers, apostles, etc., and must entirely self-feed. Christianity's version of the Army of One, which I will call the Church of One (C1).

In C1, there is no farm or building, but all are the workers.
In C1, Jesus did not have a few followers who were the close circle getting the detailed teachings, then more followers who traveled constantly with him and got a lot of His teachings, then the majority of his follower who stayed in their towns and followed the teachings of the one who came and performed the miracles and said how to think and live more righteously. Instead, only those who left all and followed were his followers. And only those who got to be on the inside were the followers.
In C1, there are not "big letter" apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers to perfect everyone else for their works of ministry. Instead, everyone has to become big in something.
In C1, everyone has every spiritual gift because they want it. And they need them all because they do not rely on anyone else to have that particular gift. They must have it for themselves.
In C1, Paul wrote to Timothy simply because he had to address it to someone. It was intended that everyone understand the charge to direct certain ones not to teach certain things, or to understand the qualifications for elder and deacon and become one.
In C1, there is no flock with a shepherd, just a flock of shepherds.

In C1, the most important parts of the NT are all those commentaries by Paul about specific things that went wrong in various churches. And the point is not that they have what they need to fix it, but that they should be focused on getting what they need and eventually fix it.

But in the church, the assembly of the redeemed, there are workers and there are the farm, the building. There are shepherds and there is a flock.

No. The flock is not just stupidly moving from sparse field to sparse field eating a little grass here and there as the shepherd doles it out. But they are not all rising to be fully shepherds.

The way we have been taught for many years — and not just in the LRC — is that we are all on our own. I do not think that everyone reading their own Bible is bad. It is very good. But everyone trying to glean their own interpretation of things is the early stages of C1 syndrome. We should be reading. But reading to see for ourselves what those who are our teachers have shown us or at least tried to show us. We read to focus and strengthen our "ethic" concerning what we learn "in the temple" so that as we live house-to-house, and at work, and in the marketplace, etc., we are living a life that will get inquiries.

When Peter said to always have an answer for every man, he was not talking about having a gospel message to proclaim from a street corner. He was expecting that each of those "different lives" being lived out in the places in which they were lived would be questioned by the people who noticed. Have an answer. If they are not asking, then it is probably that the life is not sufficiently different to be noticed and raise a question.

And last. All the focus on whether or not there are present apostles and how to detect the true from the false (if there are present apostles) is taking our eyes off of our real task, which is living changed lives, and putting them onto people. And at least some of the rhetoric seems to think that it is that task of every one of us — a bunch of C1s — to be up on it.

This is based on a view of the gospels and the epistles that sees the primacy of the gospel in following and obeying and not in the teaching. Some of the epistles were written expressly to the teachers. And some were written to the flock. But in the gospel, it is your life that seems to matter the most, not your theological knowledge or your ability to discern true apostles.

[ZNPaaneah]

After perusing this post of yours I still don't know what you mean by the term "average Christian". I do hope you could give us a definition in 100 words or less.

I do know that the NT says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" so although the elders are watching over the flock, ultimately the responsibility for your walk as a Christian is up to you. So if you receive the teaching of someone that leads you astray, no doubt they will be judged, but you also will be held accountable. RG's teaching that even if you are wrong, if you are following "the Apostle" you are right, in my mind is a bogus teaching.

I do know that the NT teaches that we each will have to stand before the judgement seat of Christ to answer for what we have done during this life, whether good or bad. So even if Jim Jones or someone else gave the order to prepare the Kool aid, you are still responsible for your actions. Similar to the way the Nazi war criminals are judged.

I do know that Jesus said "abide in me and I in you" and that any branch that didn't abide in Him would be cut off and cast into the fire. Arguing that you were just following some other man's teaching when you agreed to excommunicate TC, to me, does not justify you. Even if you want to argue that you were an "average Christian" in the LRC. You are still held accountable for realizing that the basis for the excommunication was not scriptural. I feel that if someone cuts someone off from fellowship, as in the case of TC, based on teachings that are erroneous, they are in fact the ones being broken off from the vine. I think this is evidenced by a group becoming exclusive and not wanting to fellowship with the rest of the Body, they themselves have been broken off from the vine.

I do know that we have many different gifts in the body, but just because someone is a gifted evangelist doesn't mean that other Christians who are not "gifted" are not responsible to preach the gospel. I know that the charge that the Lord gave us to go into world and preach the gospel was to every Christian, not merely to the "gifted" ones. This word in Matthew "28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Was spoken to all Christians.

Is it true that many Christians are not "gifted" teachers, and that only a few should go so far as to publish books? I would agree with that. But on the other hand I believe that the charge to be ready in season and out of season to give an answer to those that ask should apply to all christians, whether or not you are a "gifted" teacher. You are the best person to answer your coworkers question, or your friends question, or your relative's question.

[UntoHim]

No, let's keep the subject of "an average Christian" out of this thread. Let's stick to the subject of apostles. There are too many wandering posts here, attempting to address too many non related issues.

Before we hit that "Submit Reply" button let's make sure the post is addressing the matter of apostles.:iagree:

[OBW]

Unto: I am not going to try to give a definition. But I believe that there is something in the realization that the church is mostly a collection of those who follow, have been baptized, and who obey rather than who have studied like they are in seminary. It does give a different light to the meaning of the things we are currently discussing.

I do know that the NT says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" so although the elders are watching over the flock, ultimately the responsibility for your walk as a Christian is up to you. So if you receive the teaching of someone that leads you astray, no doubt they will be judged, but you also will be held accountable.At some level. And to the extent that you find that you have been duped into following something that is not even really scripture, then I would say you are correct. But I do not expect that everyone will necessarily be up on all the criteria for excommunication. So while I agree that tossing TC was not a reasonable exercise of those criteria, the members in many cities who hardly even know it happened have no basis for saying it was or was not correct. In other words, they are not culpable, and they have no basis to complain to their leadership concerning what happened.

As for what it will mean at the judgment is not a certainty. Even for those who have somewhat better knowledge, but were susceptible to follow the misapplication of scripture of the BBs, I'm not clear whether that is almost like being one of the BBs and will be punished.

In any case, the LRC position seems to be that only those who qualify as near-leadership in their personal application of the LRC brand of righteousness (sometimes something that looks more like unrighteousness) will get to miss the millennial summer school.

If that is the case, then the way that Jesus taught to the masses would seem to be deficient because he didn't tell them a whole lot of this kind of stuff. Instead, it was reserved for the somewhat smaller group that followed everywhere, and even some for only the 12.
RG's teaching that even if you are wrong, if you are following "the Apostle" you are right, in my mind is a bogus teaching.I would agree. And this is different from diligently learning from someone and following the best that you can in general. That teaching of RG was meant to cause people who could see through the unrighteousness to ignore it and continue following it anyway. I am not saying "don't exercise any judgment." I'm saying that to the extent that you don't have cause to make the judgment, accepting the judgment of someone whom you have come to trust is not a deficient thing.

And returning to the 12:
This word in Matthew "28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Was spoken to all Christians.Actually, only to the 11.
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”And I was not saying that we should not have an answer. But the context of Peter's statement was to the question raised by someone who observed the difference in your life — whether relative to your old life, or to the normal lives of the rest of society around you. Surely we have the wherewithal to say something about the Life that changed our life. But that does not mean that we individually should have the knowledge to get into a full-fledged debate of apologetics about our belief system. I think if you look at what I said before, you will see that I said Peter's statement was not about apologetics, or even about going out an preaching the gospel, but about simply acknowledging the source of the change in our lives.

I agree that none of this changes whether or not there are or are not apostles. Or whether or not someone needs to be able to spot the genuine article and differentiate it from the false. But I do have some level of thought that maybe it is not everyone's responsibility — a responsibility for a church of 1 to get right or fall so hard.

In other words, while I can make a significant case for differentiation between the kind of "believe what we tell you to or else" position of the LRC leadership and the common acceptance of "the way I learned it," the overall pattern of teachers imparting what they have learned to the whole of a flock who will then, for the most part, take it to heart and change their lives and live by it is pretty much what we see in the NT.

But because of the peculiar nature of the things that Lee taught us, we now have the impression that all of the NT was written to every Christian and that we are to be just as knowledgeable on all the doctrines and teachings that Paul was. In other words, be Paul without the status of Apostle. I don't see it. Especially if I read the gospels then assume that whatever Paul is writing is supposed to marry up with them. When I do try to harmonize them, I begin to see a legitimate tiering — not in the way of a hierarchy, but in responsibility. There are those whose gift and service is to teach and lead the rest of us. Their failure is not necessarily ours. Notice that Jesus did not fault the Jews who had sort of given up as much as those who were the teachers and did a lousy job of it (being nice to them).

So whose job is it to detect apostles? And depending on your answer to that question, what do we think we are doing here debating the existence and/or qualifications for a present-day apostle? We might just be in over our heads (unless one or more of us is legitimately a teacher).

But it doesn't seem like we have actually arrived at any kind of conclusions. More like realized that we can't even agree on the bounds of the discussion.

This is not a barb to anyone. It is an observation of the whole discussion. It is disjointed because everyone is talking from their understanding of each term. We can't agree on what is an apostle in the first century. Or definitely how to determine who was in and who was out. (And that is just one more problem with so many of these kinds of what I will call esoteric discussions. It is more about who is in and who is out than something of spiritual benefit to us all. And then someone will say that we shouldn't even be talking about Lee then. But Paul gave too clear a criteria for rejecting teachers. And Lee failed. Don't need a degree in discerning teachers to see it. And don't need to worry about "apostles" to do it.)

[UntoHim]

But it doesn't seem like we have actually arrived at any kind of conclusions. More like realized that we can't even agree on the bounds of the discussion.
This thread only started 2 1/2 weeks ago, and besides I'm not sure the goal is to have 100% consensus or any kind of firm conclusion. We are a fairly diverse group here and firm conclusions are going to be very hard to come by..and that's ok when it comes to a subject like apostles. Since our view of apostles is not a core matter of the faith, I think it's ok if we end up agreeing to disagree.

As far as "the bounds of the discussion" I think each thread is more or less self explanatory - the title of the thread gives us the bounds of the discussion. "Apostles" - We know that there were apostles appointed directly by the Lord Jesus (these we may refer to as the "original apostles"). We know that there were apostles who functioned in the first century, including those probably appointed by the original apostles. We know that there were a number of early scholars/teachers/leaders that functioned more or less as "second generation" apostles. (we can haggle over this) So we know these things. We have a firm and clear written record. Where things get murky is if true apostles (who function at least partly as the original apostles) continue on through today. I think the key is to never lose sight of what the original apostles taught and how they conducted themselves. So if somebody who claims to be, or is called by others, an apostle we are not without a way to compare and contrast.

This is not a barb to anyone. It is an observation of the whole discussion. It is disjointed because everyone is talking from their understanding of each term. We can't agree on what is an apostle in the first century.

It's disjointed because people keep sidetracking us with all sorts of unrelated issues. Of course we can agree on what is an apostle in the first century...that is if we can all agree that the New Testament is a true and complete record and has faithfully recorded for us all the pertinent who, what and where and when.

[awareness]

that is if we can all agree that the New Testament is a true and complete record and has faithfully recorded for us all the pertinent who, what and where and when.A chasm so wide and deep that none of the data can be accessed with any degree of certainty. For starters the record is not complete or we wouldn't be in such a quandary concerning apostles.

[UntoHim]

Ok, our very own doubting Thomas has chimed in (with the usual chime of course :cool:)

Anybody else?

[awareness]

Ok, our very own doubting Thomas has chimed in (with the usual chime of course :cool:)Great sense of humor UnToHim. Had me crackin up.

And yes, anyone else got somethin to contribute ...

[OBW]

As far as "the bounds of the discussion" I think each thread is more or less self explanatory - the title of the thread gives us the bounds of the discussion. "Apostles" - We know that there were apostles appointed directly by the Lord Jesus (these we may refer to as the "original apostles"). We know that there were apostles who functioned in the first century, including those probably appointed by the original apostles. We know that there were a number of early scholars/teachers/leaders that functioned more or less as "second generation" apostles. (we can haggle over this) So we know these things. We have a firm and clear written record. Where things get murky is if true apostles (who function at least partly as the original apostles) continue on through today. I think the key is to never lose sight of what the original apostles taught and how they conducted themselves. So if somebody who claims to be, or is called by others, an apostle we are not without a way to compare and contrast.Yes, that is a bounds. And it is a broad one. Broad enough that even that one word - apostle - is unclear enough that we don't really know what to do with it.

And it seems to have significantly unique a standing, at lest in some minds, that an apostle could either be rejectable as a teacher and still be a legitimate apostle, or could be acceptable as a teacher and be rejected as an apostle. Now I buy the latter because some that that might be a legitimate teacher could be held to a higher level in the minds of some. But if those minds include the teacher himself/herself, then there is a disconnect. And there should be some evidence that the teacher is not as qualified as we first thought since he/she manages to think that much more highly of them self as they ought.

But if they don't meet the "teacher" criteria, why would you even start thinking about any other criteria?

And if our belief in the acceptable teaching coming from an apostle is to speak words that stand in opposition to the records of God's speaking from the early times until now (both the OT and the NT), then we would seem to have greater problems in that we believe in a God of inconsistency. Of capriciousness.

And when you look at virtually all of the historical record since the first century AD, and the only thing you can point to as possibly an apostle are the leaders that seemed more profound in some way — and especially those that taught more of a mystical spirituality than a practicality of Christian living — and have no idea how to qualify them as such other than that you like their "newer" teachings, then we really don't seem to know much about the subject other than the words in which it is framed.

And you and others have pointed out that those original apostles did lay down the base of our faith. They either directly or indirectly put it in writing. But until that happened, the only way you knew that someone was consistently teaching the true gospel was that they we found to have been on of the ones who heard it first hand. And some special marks were given to them.

But with the recording of the faith, there is a lessening of a need for some kind of remarkable sign to establish a teacher. They just need to be within the rather broad (yet narrow) bounds of the truth passed down from the apostles.

Now I have heard missionaries who went into remote areas where they had to slowly learn a new language while among people who had never heard the gospel of Jesus and wouldn't simply accept it as meaningful if they could read it. Some of these missionaries tell of events — miracles, or signs that were meaningful to the locals — that even they were unable to understand or believe except that they knew God's hand was in it. And the result was that they were suddenly accepted by those that saw the sign as telling the truth. Suddenly these missionaries went from being a total outsider who was distrusted to being accepted by at least a portion of the people. And he gospel had a foot hold. Then as the ones who believe began to have their lives changed, others began to see and believe.

So some believed because of the sign. But ultimately more come to believe because they see for themselves.

And this is where it all leads to me. I believe that even the existence of the first century apostles was a gift to the spread of the gospel and the church. And the gifts are given as needed. If that understanding of the gifts is at least somewhat accurate, then there is no particular gift that is literally always required. Surely some are generally needed throughout the continued history of this fallen world. But are all? Or even if occasionally needed, is it an regular, ongoing thing? I'm not really sure. It seems that despite the negative rhetoric of Lee, and even somewhat of Nee and a lot of other "inner life" teachers, the church has really done quite well. The apostles' teaching seems to be continuing to this day. Not perfectly. But based on Paul's letters, that would be true from the beginning.

And so here we are, trying to decide what is an apostle. And unless we conclude that they are certainly over (not sure that is true) then what are we going to do with it? Try to determine who is and is not a present-day apostle? It won't happen. We will just like what we like and dislike what we dislike. What do we gain by elevating teachers? Harold would probably say it best — puffed-up teachers.

[Ohio]

Yes, that is a bounds. And it is a broad one. Broad enough that even that one word - apostle - is unclear enough that we don't really know what to do with it.

And it seems to have significantly unique a standing, at lest in some minds, that an apostle could either be rejectable as a teacher and still be a legitimate apostle, or could be acceptable as a teacher and be rejected as an apostle.

I do believe that some gifts to the body, considered by some to be an apostle in operation, may later be disqualified due to personal failure. This perhaps may have been the impetus for Rome's "infallibility" tenet.

At least Rome had a caveat for their MotaPope's, vis-a-vis their actions may criminal, but their teachings are "infallible." Anaheim had no such caveat.

[Cal]

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God. In others words, if they spoke something, to the Christians that looked up to them as apostles, their word was as good as the word of God. It's important to realize that no such equivalent can exist today. The word is established, and Revelation warns against adding to it.

The LRC approached and approaches giving Lee this authority. Basically their view was Lee's interpretation of the word is as good as the word--and the corollary, Lee's interpretation is better than anyone's including yours, which precludes your exercising your own interpretation--a stunning limitation!

Now, outside of fringe groups, I don't know of any preeminent Christian teacher in history after the 1st century being afforded that kind of authority. One has to ask oneself, is it legitimate? In my judgment, no way.

It's also important to note that no major Christian teacher including Luther, Calvin, and others, ever sought or accepted the designation of apostle.

[UntoHim]

Where things get murky is if true apostles (who function at least partly as the original apostles) continue on through today. I think the key is to never lose sight of what the original apostles taught and how they conducted themselves. So if somebody who claims to be, or is called by others, an apostle we are not without a way to compare and contrast
I do believe that some gifts to the body, considered by some to be an apostle in operation, may later be disqualified due to personal failure.
Maybe the truth is that nobody can actually live up to the standard of an apostle. Maybe the truth is that the Body of Christ is so much larger than in the first century, that to have such universal “overseers” is not practical. I am not making dogmatic statements, more like just talking to myself out loud.

“considered by some to be an apostle in operation” - this may be a key in our considerations. Is it possible that someone could be functioning as an apostle to a group of churches (or an affiliation of churches), and recognized by this group as an apostle of sorts, but not recognized by any other group? Does this make this person any less of an apostle if he is only recognized by the group he ministers among? Under this interpretation maybe Witness Lee was an apostle, at least within the sphere of the Local Church.

“may later be disqualified due to personal failure” – Does this bring us back to the “nobody can actually live up to the standard of an apostle?” When it comes to the case of Witness Lee, maybe his personal failures should have disqualified him from reaching “apostle status” in the first place. There were older brothers around (in the US and Taiwan) at the beginning of the Movement in the US that could have sounded the warning but chose not to do so. This is a serious mistake that the Local Church has suffered the repercussions of since the beginning. In all fairness though, nobody can see into the future, and besides is it fair to “try those who call themselves apostles” before they even call themselves apostles?

[UntoHim]

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God.

Really, really good point! What I would add is that original apostles (at least Paul) made it perfectly clear that the believers were to "do what I say and do what I do" They were an example in word AND deed. This is especially evident in the apostle Paul's letters to the Corinthians. He made it clear that his authority among them was derived not only from his words but from his work among them.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God.

I don't understand what you mean by this. I think it is clear from Paul's writings that he was not given that much respect from the church at large and that large regions rejected his ministry. I think it is also clear that for many genuine Christians either never saw his letters or did not receive them as the word of God.

It was Peter who referred to Paul's writings as "Scripture", but it was done in such a way that it gives me an impression that there was a debate going on about Paul's writings and that many were twisting his words. So we know that some turned away from Paul and rejected him, some taught differently from Paul, some twisted his words, some didn't understand his teachings, and some considered his teachings "scripture". Whereas today only fringe groups and cultic groups would not consider Paul's writings to be authoritative scripture.

[Ohio]

“considered by some to be an apostle in operation” - this may be a key in our considerations. Is it possible that someone could be functioning as an apostle to a group of churches (or an affiliation of churches), and recognized by this group as an apostle of sorts, but not recognized by any other group? Does this make this person any less of an apostle if he is only recognized by the group he ministers among? Under this interpretation maybe Witness Lee was an apostle, at least within the sphere of the Local Church.

Often I have wondered what happened to the rest of the "Twelve," who were scattered by persecution. (Acts 8.1-4) Initially, the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but later all were eventually scattered to the nations, except for the ones martyred in Judea. When I used to work with the college students, I met a believer from India, who talked to me at length how Thomas was the Apostle to their country. I just marveled and worshiped God as I learned that "doubting Thomas" went to India and his fruit still remains to this day.

After Pentecost, the Bible goes completely silent concerning Thomas and he appears to be an apostle only to the people of India. Probably none in Europe would have recognized him as their apostle. When the missionaries of the modern times went to India, they built upon the foundation Thomas had laid. Now, of course, Thomas was one of the Twelve chosen by the Lord, yet he wrote none of scripture. In Judea, he was overpowered by Peter and others in the forefront, yet in India, he operated as an apostle preaching the gospel, establishing churches, cutting straight the truth, appointing elders, etc.

[Ohio]

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God. In others words, if they spoke something, to the Christians that looked up to them as apostles, their word was as good as the word of God. It's important to realize that no such equivalent can exist today. The word is established, and Revelation warns against adding to it.

This idea may be supported by I Thess 2.13

[ZNPaaneah]

The LRC approached and approaches giving Lee this authority. Basically their view was Lee's interpretation of the word is as good as the word--and the corollary, Lee's interpretation is better than anyone's including yours, which precludes your exercising your own interpretation--a stunning limitation!

Now, outside of fringe groups, I don't know of any preeminent Christian teacher in history after the 1st century being afforded that kind of authority. One has to ask oneself, is it legitimate? In my judgment, no way.


I agree that this kind of authority is not legitimate. But I would think that it wasn't legitimate for the original 12 Apostles plus Paul either. How could anyone consider Peter infallible? Look at the council in Acts, no one was treating Paul as the mouthpiece of God. Look at Peter answering to everyone after visiting Cornelius, they were initially treating him as a heretic. From the record I think these ones were viewed in ways similar to leading brothers in the churches today. It is only after their writings were canonized that all Christians came to view their words as scripture.

[Cal]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Okay, I tell you what I mean: As far as New Testament revelation goes, the apostles' word was the highest authority, until the NT scripture was established.

A lot of Christians in that day questioned the apostles? Well, a lot these days question the Bible. That doesn't take away from their authority.

[Cal]

Paul made clear that he had the authority to pass on direct commandments from God. 1 Cor 7:6, 25; 14:37; 2 Cor 8:8; 1 Thes 4:2,11; 2 Thes 3:4, 6, 12; 1 Tim 1:8;

John did, too. 1 John 2:8;

[Cal]

This idea may be supported by I Thess 2.13

Yes.

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

[ZNPaaneah]

Okay, I tell you what I mean: As far as New Testament revelation goes, the apostles' word was the highest authority, until the NT scripture was established.
A lot of Christians in that day questioned the apostles? Well, a lot these days question the Bible. That doesn't take away from their authority.

So then, if someone speaks the word of God from the NT does it have any less authority than the word spoken by the apostles in the first century?

[ZNPaaneah]

Yes.

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Should writing scripture be part of the definition of an apostle?
Matt. 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

And lastly, Paul.

Of these, Peter, John, Matthew and Paul wrote scripture. We have a list of 12 apostles plus Paul and less than a third of them wrote scripture. To me this makes it clear that writing scripture is not a requirement or job description of an apostle.

Further, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not apostles. So writing scripture does not all of a sudden elevate one to apostleship.

Finally, to be fair, half of the New Testament is written by the Apostle Paul, and he wasn’t one of the 12.

Why is the fact that they wrote scripture being used as a criteria for classifying or identifying apostles?

[Cal]

Why is the fact that they wrote scripture being used as a criteria for classifying or identifying apostles?

Because the primary job of the early apostles was to establish the faith.

[Cal]

So then, if someone speaks the word of God from the NT does it have any less authority than the word spoken by the apostles in the first century?

Why not simply ask if scripture has less authority than the early apostles? The answer would be no. Who speaks it or whether someone speaks it or not is irrelevant to its authority.

[Ohio]

Should writing scripture be part of the definition of an apostle?
Matt. 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

And lastly, Paul.

Of these, Peter, John, Matthew and Paul wrote scripture. We have a list of 12 apostles plus Paul and less than a third of them wrote scripture. To me this makes it clear that writing scripture is not a requirement or job description of an apostle.

Further, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not apostles. So writing scripture does not all of a sudden elevate one to apostleship.

Finally, to be fair, half of the New Testament is written by the Apostle Paul, and he wasn’t one of the 12.


Why is the fact that they wrote scripture being used as a criteria for classifying or identifying apostles?

Did someone say Deja Vu? This is exactly how we started this thread.

I'm debating whether I should be less vocal this go around.

[UntoHim]

ZNP you are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle.

The Holy Spirit chose several of the earliest apostles, along with some others closely related to them, to write what would eventually be accepted as the Canon of the New Testament. We know that there were many writings (gospels, epistles, private letters, etc) produced by many different sources during the first Century after the death & resurrection of our Lord.

At a certain point, the Holy Spirit then chose a number of wise and spiritual men to come and put together what we now know as the New Testament. Among their many considerations, one was surely to identify the authenticity of each gospel, epistle, letter, etc. The fact that some (most) of these writers were apostles is not necessarily connected to the "requirements" of apostleship. Since nobody is writing scripture today (apostle or not) this is essentially a moot point for us in the here and now.

Nobody is being appointed to be an apostle directly from the Lord Jesus anymore (if somebody tells you they are, then run straight for the door). This is why I keep harping upon the idea that our only way to know is to compare and contrast a person's words and actions with those of the original apostles as recorded for us in the New Testament. Any and all "discernment" in this area MUST come from our knowledge and wisdom gained from the Word of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Because the primary job of the early apostles was to establish the faith.

Great, now we are getting somewhere. What are the verse references?

[awareness]

ZNP you are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle.

The Holy Spirit chose several of the earliest apostles, along with some others closely related to them, to write what would eventually be accepted as the Canon of the New Testament. Good points bro UnToHim.

But did you really have to make up that story about the holy spirit pickin wise and spiritual men to put the canonical books together?

The Catholic church even today consider the church to be a higher authority then the Bible because they chose the books of the Bible. And I don't think they were spirit led wise and spiritual men. They were scoundrels that manhandled the NT manuscripts and changed them. So because of them there are more errors in the NT manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

Besides that, good post ...

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP you are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle... The fact that some (most) of these writers were apostles is not necessarily connected to the "requirements" of apostleship. Since nobody is writing scripture today (apostle or not) this is essentially a moot point for us in the here and now.

I am looking at this from the angle presented by Igzy when he started this thread.

Igzy Post #1 “Our apostle therefore is the Scriptures.”

Igzy Post #5 “Apostles can define divine truth, i.e. write Scripture...The issue is being a sent one of the kind who not only teaches, but brings direct speaking from God which can be equal to scripture. Only the first century apostles could do this.”

So, my question is on this point. Based on what does Igzy say that Apostles, of any era, were defined by writing scripture. The fact that some Apostles wrote scripture is not evidence that this is a characteristic of “the Apostles” since the majority of them did not write scripture. In fact, Paul was not one of the 12 apostles and he wrote more scripture than all of the 12 apostles combined. It could simply be a coincidence that several of the apostles also wrote scripture and may have nothing to do with the gift of apostles.

[UntoHim]

Good points bro UnToHim.
But did you really have to make up that story about the holy spirit pickin wise and spiritual men to put the canonical books together?
The Catholic church even today consider the church to be a higher authority then the Bible because they chose the books of the Bible. And I don't think they were spirit led wise and spiritual men. They were scoundrels that manhandled the NT manuscripts and changed them. So because of them there are more errors in the NT manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.
Besides that, good post ...

Harold I think you posted this in the wrong thread - I think you meant to place it in the UFO/Alien thread didn't you? If you are going to hammer on the Catholic church you really need to get your facts straight. I mean, do you get ALL your information from those conspiracy kooks? You seem smarter then that. I know you don't want the Bible to be true, heck 99% of the human race doesn't want any of it to be true, but I'm afraid you are going to have to do better then what you have posted here. It's real weak dude...kinda like the stories of the people who claim they have been "abducted" by some green men and their flying saucer:skeptical:

[awareness]

Good come back bro. So how are you going to prove that, "At a certain point, the Holy Spirit then chose a number of wise and spiritual men to come and put together what we now know as the New Testament?" Just who were these wise and spiritual men?

And how do you get around that there are more errors in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament?

[OBW]

Because the primary job of the early apostles was to establish the faith.
Great, now we are getting somewhere. What are the verse references?Matt 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee . . . . Then Jesus came to them and said, “. . . . go and make disciples . . . baptizing . . . and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Acts 6:2-4 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” (BTW, very off-topic, but did anyone notice that there was a "Nicolas" among the seven chosen. Just doubting that he was named "bully.")

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

I do not find specific verses (at least not quickly) where it says "the apostles are supposed to establish the faith" but it seems that these, and probably a lot more, pretty well set them as the source of the teachings that were recorded in the scripture. It was the 11 — not every follower at the time — that got the word to go and disciple in Matthew. It was their teaching that was the thing further contemplated in Acts 2. Deacons were sought to fulfill some of the service roles so that the 12 could be devoted to prayer and ministry of the word. And Paul was set apart for a work that God called him to.

When I consider scripture, I see the gospels that provide the core. And the Acts that give us a historical perspective of the spread. Then the various epistles that comment on the practice of the gospel — the living-out of the gospel.

I note that we so often look to Paul for our doctrine. But the core of our doctrine should come from Christ. Paul commented. He observed the ways that the church, and especially the Gentile churches that did not have an OT background, could miss the righteousness required by the gospel. Fighting among each other due to social status, or which teacher they liked best. And a lot of other things. From what I can tell, Paul didn't teach such new things, but instead came back through his letters to correct wanderings from the correct following (disciples) and obeying.

We seem to think that Paul wrote Galatians to tell us to be crucified with Christ. But he actually told us that we have been. And that since we have, we should not be doing the things he is hearing about. Seems the solution was not to get more crucified, but to obey. Sound familiar?

Well it should. Jesus taught a lot. It is recorded in the gospels. We are to become followers of that. And obey it. And when Paul said for others to take his life as a pattern, he wasn't talking about being spiritual, "being crucified," or any of the imagery that he used to spur them on, but about the things that he was spurring them on in — obedience.

And now it is written down for our benefit. Though at times it seems that maybe we could actually need an apostle to come tell us that we have been too focused on the imagery of Paul and less on the command to follow and obey given by Jesus and repeated over and over by Paul, Peter, John, and even James, Jude, and whoever actually wrote Hebrews.

Now for those who have truly been living under a rock, or in a remote rain forest, and have never even heard of Christ or the Bible, they need someone sent to them. And it may take more than a lot of words, even words dictated by the true God, to convince them. They may need to see something that demonstrates that it is more than good words from mortal men. It may take a miracle. And I believe that on occasion that happens today. But not very often in what we call the civilized world. But the seeming reduction or near disappearance of miracles and signs does not say anything about God, but about the need for signs and miracles. Their time may not be over, but it could be close to true. Same for apostles of the kind that we read of in the NT. I can't find evidence that they simply are no more. But I don't really see them either.

We don't know when, but there are things that will pass away. We can presume that it is upon the return of Christ. But that is not stated. Just presumed. Observe the history. Miracles led the children of Israel out of Egypt and into the good land. And there were miracles surrounding the winning of several battles. But then the miracles began to be limited to the fact that the words of the prophets came true. And then even prophetic silence. Yet during that silence, in some ways Israel was in better shape than ever. They had finally gotten the idolatry out of their midst. That was the one thing that God seemed to care about the most.

Now the NT. The church. It gets established. The core teachings of the faith are given and recorded. And we continue on from that. Just like Israel, we have some different camps. But we are still following. There were the Sadducees and Pharisees (not looking at their leadership issues, but at them as representatives of major schools of thought). There were the two major rabbis teaching about many things. (And Jesus took sides on the issue of divorce.) Looks like Christianity. Lee would fault it all because there was not just one rabbi (him) and everyone in the same school of thought. But Jesus really didn't say as much about that as the hypocrisy in many of their teachings.

[OBW]

Good come back bro. So how are you going to prove that, "At a certain point, the Holy Spirit then chose a number of wise and spiritual men to come and put together what we now know as the New Testament?" Just who were these wise and spiritual men?

And how do you get around that there are more errors in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament?And how many of those errors actually result in one version or another saying something truly different? I believe that the answer is "very few" and that even those differences do not change the meaning of the message.

[Ohio]

And how do you get around that there are more errors in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament?

We already rebutted that statement.

First of all, there are absolutely no errors regarding the truths of the faith. All the so-called "errors" are minor discrepancies in word tenses and the like. The transmission of documents from the original autographs is more exceedingly accurate than any other documents in man's history.

Also the dates of newly uncovered manuscripts continue to improve. For example, "the Chester Beatty Papyrus II, containing all of Paul's epistles except the Pastorals (I Tim, II Tim, Titus) has recently been dated to the late 1st century." -- P.W. Comfort, The Origin of the Bible

awareness, it is highly unfair to other forum readers for you to continually make distorted and exaggerated claims in order to discredit the scriptures. I really wish you would do some unbiased investigative research into these areas, and not just quote untested internet sources which are designed to simply breed doubts and questionings.

[Ohio]

(BTW, very off-topic, but did anyone notice that there was a "Nicolas" among the seven chosen. Just doubting that he was named "bully.")
From what I can tell, Paul didn't teach such new things, but instead came back through his letters to correct wanderings from the correct following (disciples) and obeying.


OBW, nice "jab" about the Nicholas - "bully" comment. You snuck that one in, didn't you? :)

I have to disagree about Paul's teachings, they did go further than the teaching of the Twelve. Many things he taught were from the resurrected Christ as the Spirit and not the earthly Jesus, even as the Lord told the Twelve in John 16.12-15.

[zeek]

The original premise of this thread is that the Bible is today's apostle. Sola scriptura (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) ablative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_case), "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) contains all knowledge necessary for salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation) and holiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification) [Wikipedia]. One problem with that idea is that how the Bible is interpreted is as important as what the Bible says. To understand the problem, imagine that no one knows how to read. It wouldn't matter how inspired the Bible is if no one can read and understand it. Of course most people do know how to read. But reading also requires understanding. The words of the Bible are ambiguous enough to permit many interpreations. How do we know which if any are correct? If every individual makes his or her own interpretation, we are hardly in an analogous situation to that of churches under the authority of a living apostle.

The other side of the authority issue is the theory of apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic doctrine on this is the most familiar, with the Orthodox Church next. However, as I imagine most of you are aware, theories of apostolic succession abound in the denominations. Witness Lee seems to have claimed that the Lord's recovery apostolic succession was resumed beginning with Count Zinzendorf. Witness Lee did not name a successor so I take it was intention to confer apostolic authority to the "Blended Brothers." If I'm right about this, that would mean that apostolic authority is what is "blended" among them. What do you think?

[Ohio]

Witness Lee seems to have claimed that the Lord's recovery apostolic succession was resumed beginning with Count Zinzendorf. Witness Lee did not name a successor so I take it was intention to confer apostolic authority to the "Blended Brothers." If I'm right about this, that would mean that apostolic authority is what is "blended" among them. What do you think?

I thought WL assigned Luther the first MOTA of recovery apostolic succession?

Ron Kangas, the leading Blended theologian, has stated that he is a "deputized authority" of the body of Christ, which to me is a supposed "apostolic authority" conferred upon him by WL, and which he demonstrated in those recent quarantines.

[zeek]

It's possible WL assigned Luther as the first apostle in a resumed succession. We'll have to search the Life Studies. If that true about RK, then he's claiming apostleship albeit apparently in a "kinder, gentler", more tentative way.

[Ohio]

It's possible WL assigned Luther as the first apostle in a resumed succession. We'll have to search the Life Studies. If that true about RK, then he's claiming apostleship albeit apparently in a "kinder, gentler", more tentative way.

In the book, Vision of the Age, WL listed Luther, Madame Guyon, then Zinzendorf, as if God assigned MOTA's one per century.

I don't see anything "kinder, gentler, or more tentative" about RK or BP. RK traveled to Ecuador to call Isitt the internet "man of death" after he nixed DYL and all Brazil, and TC and the GLA.

Just as Darby's successors became increasingly more exclusive, so have WL's.

[ZNPaaneah]

Matt 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee . . . . Then Jesus came to them and said, “. . . . go and make disciples . . . baptizing . . . and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Acts 6:2-4 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

So then, if these are the verses that demonstrate an Apostle's function was to confirm the faith, you have to ask do these verses only apply to the 1st century apostles, or are they still applicable today?

Today, do we need some to "teach new converts to obey everything the Lord has commanded"? I would say yes.

Today our version of the Apostle's teaching is the NT. However, there were only 3 of the 12 apostles who wrote the NT. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that the other 9 apostle's taught the same thing as the NT. Is it really that different if someone today teaches the NT? Once again, I would say that this verse is still applicable today.

In Acts 6 we see the apostles devoted themselves to the ministry of the word. Do we really think that this function is no longer applicable. I would say that today we still have those that devote themselves to the ministry of the word.

In Acts 13 it describes Barnabas and Paul being set aside for the work that Jesus called him to. Neither of these two was an eyewitness to the Lord's earthly ministry as one of the disciples. Therefore, the idea that Apostles are limited to those that were with the Lord from the beginning is certainly not applicable. Once again, based on this verse I would say we still have the Lord calling believer and setting believers aside to the work.

[UntoHim]

The original premise of this thread is that the Bible is today's apostle. Sola scriptura (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) ablative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_case), "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) contains all knowledge necessary for salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation) and holiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctification) [Wikipedia]. One problem with that idea is that how the Bible is interpreted is as important as what the Bible says. To understand the problem, imagine that no one knows how to read. It wouldn't matter how inspired the Bible is if no one can read and understand it. Of course most people do know how to read. But reading also requires understanding. The words of the Bible are ambiguous enough to permit many interpretations. How do we know which if any are correct? If every individual makes his or her own interpretation, we are hardly in an analogous situation to that of churches under the authority of a living apostle.

zeek is getting us to the heart of the matter I believe.

Igzy has proposed that The church is apostolic, meaning it's based on the teachings of the apostles. The church has believed that since the beginning. But the apostles are gone. Our apostle therefore is the Scriptures. Nothing more. Nothing less. Any other stance is reckless. I would put a little finer point this. My take would be that Our apostle therefore is the apostles' teachings as presented in the New Testament Maybe this is exactly what Igzy means and if so I'm just spitting hairs.

I must admit, at the start of this thread, I was more on the side of those who say there are (should be) apostles today. On the surface it appears that Ephesians 4:11 ("And He gave some apostles..") is strong evidence for this view. The statement a few verses earlier ("..And He gave gifts to men") helps to bolster this view as well. But I must bow to the realities that we are faced with in the here and now. This is to say nothing of the fact that just about everybody (in our lifetimes) who has ever said they were an apostle, or were called an apostle by others, has completely and utterly failed the test - they have been tried and found to be false. Sorry to say my dear Local Church brothers and sisters (current and former), but Witness Lee definitely falls into the "tried and found to be false" category.

[awareness]

We already rebutted that statement.

First of all, there are absolutely no errors regarding the truths of the faith.Yes likely true. But even one error calls into question the superstitious presumption of inerrancy of NT scripture.

All the so-called "errors" are minor discrepancies in word tenses and the like.No there's more to it than that. Example : The Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8 ; The end of Mark, and even the adulterous woman of cast the first stone in the Gospel of John. These are hefty changes, not word tenses and such.

Also the dates of newly uncovered manuscripts continue to improve. For example, "the Chester Beatty Papyrus II, containing all of Paul's epistles except the Pastorals (I Tim, II Tim, Titus) has recently been dated to the late 1st century." -- P.W. Comfort, The Origin of the Bible
Yes, and I believe is why 1 and 11 Timothy and Titus are suspected forgeries.

awareness, it is highly unfair to other forum readers for you to continually make distorted and exaggerated claims in order to discredit the scriptures. I really wish you would do some unbiased investigative research into these areas, and not just quote untested internet sources which are designed to simply breed doubts and questionings.Most of my learning comes from reading books, not from the web.

[Ohio]

I must admit, at the start of this thread, I was more on the side of those who say there are (should be) apostles today. On the surface it appears that Ephesians 4:11 ("And He gave some apostles..") is strong evidence for this view. The statement a few verses earlier ("..And He gave gifts to men") helps to bolster this view as well. But I must bow to the realities that we are faced with in the here and now. This is to say nothing of the fact that just about everybody (in our lifetimes) who has ever said they were an apostle, or were called an apostle by others, has completely and utterly failed the test - they have been tried and found to be false. Sorry to say my dear Local Church brothers and sisters (current and former), but Witness Lee definitely falls into the "tried and found to be false" category.

WL wanted us to believe (as JND before him) that all of Christianity has miserably failed, has become incurably divided, and has become hopelessly degraded, hence both God and man ought to abandon her completely. Was that not his continual message of the last half century?

Hence, God had to raise up another apostle, like unto Paul, who would bring about local testimonies of golden lampstands all one, and all pleasing to the Lord, thus preparing His return. In this way WL wanted us to believe that the same apostolic authority given to Paul, was now given to him. Many of us believed this to varying degrees.

If ..... and I say if ..... the Head of the body were as disgruntled with divisions as we were taught to believe, giving up on Christianity as we were taught to believe, and starting from scratch in the LC's as we were taught to believe, then I do believe the Lord would have to establish a modern day apostle, like He did with Paul. All the signs and wonders of the 1st century must also accompany this "apostle." His life must also be as exemplary as Paul's was.

To me this exactly defines the WL/Blended dilemma. They fiercely believe all of the above. Therefore, they must "doctor up" their image of WL to match that of Paul and the early apostles. Any positive thing must be attributed to WL, and every negative thing must be blamed on others. If you swallow this "Hollywood imagery" of the Recovery, asking no questions nor accepting any facts to the contrary, then you are "living in the land of make believe," as the old Moody Blues song so aptly describes:

Take a look -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5R44dN-L0Q
We're living in the land of make-believe
And trying not to let it show
Maybe in that land of make-believe
Heartaches can turn into joy.

We're breathing in the smoke of high and low
We're taking up a lot of room
Somewhere in the dark and silent night
Our prayer will be heard, make it soon.So fly little bird
Up into the clear blue sky
And carry the word
Love's the only reason why, why.

Open all the shutters on your windows
Unlock all the locks upon your doors
Brush away the cobwebs from your day-dreams
No secrets come between us any more
Oh say it's true
Only love will see you through
You know what love can do to you.

We're living in a land of make-believe
And trying not to let it show
Maybe in that land of make-believe
Heartaches can turn into joy.

We're breathing in the smoke of high and low
We're taking up a lot of room
Somewhere in the dark and lonely night
Our prayer will be heard, make it soon.

So fly little bird
Up into the clear blue sky
And carry the word
Love's the only reason why, why.

Open all the shutters on your windows
Unlock all the locks upon your doors
Brush away the cobwebs from your day-dreams
No secrets come between us any more
Oh say it's true
Only love will see you through
You know what love can do to you.

[awareness]

Ron Kangas, the leading Blended theologian, has stated that he is a "deputized authority" of the body of Christ, which to me is a supposed "apostolic authority" conferred upon him by WL, and which he demonstrated in those recent quarantines.Can we document this about RK?

[Ohio]

Can we document this about RK?

Yes, I have read it, but not sure where.

[awareness]

Yes, I have read it, but not sure where.Get back to us then. Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...?? How about Indiana? He surely would document such a claim?

[zeek]

In the book, Vision of the Age, WL listed Luther, Madame Guyon, then Zinzendorf, as if God assigned MOTA's one per century.
I don't see anything "kinder, gentler, or more tentative" about RK or BP. RK traveled to Ecuador to call Isitt the internet "man of death" after he nixed DYL and all Brazil, and TC and the GLA.
Just as Darby's successors became increasingly more exclusive, so have WL's.

I was speaking somewhat ironically, Ohio, with an allusion to W.H. Bush. But speaking factually, from what I have read, RK has not flat out stated that he is the apostle of the age as WL did. That's what I meant.

[Ohio]

I was speaking somewhat ironically, Ohio, with an allusion to W.H. Bush.

But speaking factually, from what I have read, RK has not flat out stated that he is the apostle of the age as WL did. That's what I meant.

I understood your allusion to Bush.

To my knowledge, RK has not called himself the "apostle of the age." I think WL only alluded to these many outrageous claims. It was RK and the Blendeds who actually made them about WL.

RK did, however, refer to himself as a deputy authority of the body of Christ in regard to the quarantines.

[zeek]

I understood your allusion to Bush.

To my knowledge, RK has not called himself the "apostle of the age." I think WL only alluded to these many outrageous claims. It was RK and the Blendeds who actually made them about WL.

RK did, however, refer to himself as a deputy authority of the body of Christ in regard to the quarantines.

I recall WL making the claim to be the Apostle of the age explicitly himself. The first time I heard him do so was @ 1975. I was called to a special brothers only meeting on a Saturday afternoon and heard him make the statement on audio tape. I was shocked and my mind reeled so I remember the occasion pretty clearly. I thought he sounded grandiose. I thought it was unChristian to boast that way. I felt like bolting from the church but I had recently married a burning sister who would not have been willing to leave with me so I didn't.

[Ohio]

Get back to us then. Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...?? How about Indiana? He surely would document such a claim?

Can you search through those documents at afaithfulword.com from Whistler?

I'm pretty sure it was in there.

I don't have the 'puter skills you have.

[ZNPaaneah]

I must admit, at the start of this thread, I was more on the side of those who say there are (should be) apostles today. On the surface it appears that Ephesians 4:11 ("And He gave some apostles..") is strong evidence for this view. The statement a few verses earlier ("..And He gave gifts to men") helps to bolster this view as well. But I must bow to the realities that we are faced with in the here and now. This is to say nothing of the fact that just about everybody (in our lifetimes) who has ever said they were an apostle, or were called an apostle by others, has completely and utterly failed the test - they have been tried and found to be false. Sorry to say my dear Local Church brothers and sisters (current and former), but Witness Lee definitely falls into the "tried and found to be false" category.

I have followed this thread from the first post and I don’t think anyone has adequately defined what the gift of apostles is. It seems to me that this is the crucial concept that must be addressed before you can come to any conclusions.

One issue we find is that apostles are also evangelists, they are also shepherds and teachers, and they are also prophets. And in fact I think that should lead us to a useful definition. I would compare an Apostle to a “Pioneer species”. This is a scientific term and I have provided a definition for those of you who are not familiar with this.

Pioneer species are species which colonize previously uncolonized land, usually leading to ecological succession. They are the first organisms to start the chain of events leading to a livable biosphere or ecosystem. Since uncolonized land may have thin, poor quality soils with few nutrients, pioneer species are often hearty plants with adaptations such as long roots, root nodes containing nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and leaves that employ transpiration. Pioneer species will die creating plant litter, and break down as 'leaf mold' after some time, making new soil for secondary succession (see below), and nutrients for small fish and aquatic plants in adjacent bodies of water.

Based on this, I would propose the following definition: Apostles are gifted Christians that can go into land where the gospel has not previously been and plant churches. Often in a situation like that it is necessary for God to assist the work with signs and wonders.

It is also important to understand that when pioneer plants go into an uncolonized land, and this leads to ecological succession, it also usually leads to the pioneer plants becoming marginalized and almost eliminated. So from this standpoint, it does seem to support the original thesis by Igzy based on the book he quoted, that we no longer need apostles.

However, nature does not work this way. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted the surrounding area was wiped out of all life. The first life to return were the pioneer species. Five times in Earth’s history we have had devastating extinction events planet wide, again life bounced back very quickly, in a large part due to the pioneer species. So this also supports the position I and others have taken that the gift of the apostles remains with us. Even if these gifted ones are dormant or marginalized, in the event of a holocaust or communist revolution, or some other event that wipes out the “Christian ecosystem” they will flourish again. All you have to do is read the history of the Christians in China during the last 70 years to realize that we have had legitimate apostles with signs and wonders.

So I do agree that the US today does not need the gift of the apostles, yet at the same time I also believe that these gifted ones are here, present, and will become extremely valuable to the Body of Christ in the event that we do need them.

[rayliotta]

Get back to us then. Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...?? How about Indiana? He surely would document such a claim?

Statements such as, You're touching God's government, sure are a strong hint in this direction, no? But yes, such a direct statement as what Ohio referred to, that would make it plain as day...

[rayliotta]

I recall WL making the claim to be the Apostle of the age explicitly himself. The first time I heard him do so was @ 1975. I was called to a special brothers only meeting on a Saturday afternoon and heard him make the statement on audio tape. I was shocked and my mind reeled so I remember the occasion pretty clearly. I thought he sounded grandiose. I thought it was unChristian to boast that way. I felt like bolting from the church but I had recently married a burning sister who would not have been willing to leave with me so I didn't.

Didn't this fall under the "wink, nod" subpoint in the Wise Master Builder outline? :eek: :eek:

[awareness]

Can you search through those documents at afaithfulword.com from Whistler?

I'm pretty sure it was in there.

I don't have the 'puter skills you have.Bro Ohio, are you trying to send me on a wild goose chase? Of course if Kangas ever claimed handed down from Lee deputy authority they wouldn't publicize it on their website ..

[zeek]

Didn't this fall under the "wink, nod" subpoint in the Wise Master Builder outline? :eek: :eek:

No this was a special meeting occasioned by I know not what. Some kind of perceived challenge to Lee's leadership I suspect. It was an audio tape before he started putting out videos. I do not have word for word recall of the messae or a transcript though, so I can only assert that this is how I remember it.

[OBW]

OBW, nice "jab" about the Nicholas - "bully" comment. You snuck that one in, didn't you?

I have to disagree about Paul's teachings, they did go further than the teaching of the Twelve. Many things he taught were from the resurrected Christ as the Spirit and not the earthly Jesus, even as the Lord told the Twelve in John 16.12-15.First, it was not intended as a jab, although I did recall that there was some question raised by some of the non-clergy/laity thinking that maybe this particular Nicolas was somehow the source of the name. I always considered that to be nothing more than speculation. But the idea that we took the reading of the nuances of the words that could make up the name and found the ones that created something that could be made hay of in teaching something that seems special rather than allowing for the more likely meanings is not particularly new. And not a lot different than saying that "economy" simply equals "dispensing." (And only dispensing.)

I would agree that Paul's teachings were of a different type than those of the 12. But I'm not sure that his goal was really any different than theirs. The more I read Paul, the more I see him directing his charges to imitate Christ, and to obey. Imitate Christ in so many ways. Not squabbling over social status, or condemning those who believe differently with respect to certain things, like meat offered to idols, or observing days. These are not an exclusive list, but examples.

And I think that if you read Paul a little more broadly (meaning read the whole passage in which he says some of those interesting and spiritual things) you may find that he seldom says to do spiritual things, or to work on spiritual things, but to note that there are spiritual realities that allow (and even command) that you obey with respect to whatever it is that Paul is talking about. So Paul does give us a brilliant painting of the spiritual realities, but they are not for the purpose of being spiritual as much as they are for the purpose of being the righteous, obedient follower that Jesus commanded.

In other words, the gospels really are the core. They are the heart of the divine revelation. We may get a better look behind the curtain with Paul's writings, but all of it is to direct us back to following and obeying. Not to falling all over "spiritual" activities. And we have seen through the value of those overly-adjectivized phrases that the LRC shouts "hallelujah!" about so much. But have we considered that running around trying to determine whether we are living the "I've been crucified with Christ" life enough to finally do that thing that Jesus (and also Paul) commanded is just as bad. Paul didn't say go get more crucified. He said we are, so we should do.

Doesn't look as different from the gospels when that is your view. And more and more I am unable to see Paul as telling us so much unique stuff as much as I see him commenting on the real core of the New Testament. And that is the gospels.

And another LRC error. They are so sure that John is the really important gospel. But if that is true, why did God have the others written first, and seemingly three passes at much of the same things, then later add that different gospel by John? Maybe the content of the other three is three times more important than the one. (Probably not that simple.) Or the three are the core, but the one is also needed. And if you are going to focus on only part of it, the weight of the three may just indicate relative importance in some ways. You can be obedient without getting into so much of the spirituality. But if you try to be spiritual without the obedience, you are just a sham.

[OBW]

So then, if these are the verses that demonstrate an Apostle's function was to confirm the faith, you have to ask do these verses only apply to the 1st century apostles, or are they still applicable today?

Today, do we need some to "teach new converts to obey everything the Lord has commanded"? I would say yes.

Today our version of the Apostle's teaching is the NT. However, there were only 3 of the 12 apostles who wrote the NT. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that the other 9 apostle's taught the same thing as the NT. Is it really that different if someone today teaches the NT? Once again, I would say that this verse is still applicable today.

In Acts 6 we see the apostles devoted themselves to the ministry of the word. Do we really think that this function is no longer applicable. I would say that today we still have those that devote themselves to the ministry of the word.

In Acts 13 it describes Barnabas and Paul being set aside for the work that Jesus called him to. Neither of these two was an eyewitness to the Lord's earthly ministry as one of the disciples. Therefore, the idea that Apostles are limited to those that were with the Lord from the beginning is certainly not applicable. Once again, based on this verse I would say we still have the Lord calling believer and setting believers aside to the work.I agree in principle. Of course, I think I indicated that I do not consider these to be some kind of definitive verses, but ones that paint a picture. And for me, the picture they paint has a context and it includes looking at the whole of the OT and NT history, seeing that Jesus did not command everyone to go and disciple, etc.

But when you mention that there are people today who devote themselves to prayer and teaching the word, that is true of many people that I would not assert as being apostles at much of any level. Clearly teachers, but not apostles. The question of significance is whether there is some kind of special office/gift/position (or whatever) that is a kind of apostle that we should be keen to keep in front of us, or rather something much more general. If it is something much more general, then the earlier comments that I and others have made indicating that the real discernment is in the teachings and in the character of the person may still be all you need.

And if it is so general, then what is the significance of saying it is an apostle rather than simply a teacher? Are gaining anything from figuring out who is an apostle? Or are we simply doing mental gymnastics and the truth is that we are going to accept the good teachings and reject the bad either way and nothing will change except for our "reverence" toward any so-called "apostle." If that is all we accomplish, then I would probably rather not have a basis for thinking that certain ones may be apostles because that would simply be an invitation for a new sect and a personality cult.

But if there really are these important apostles today, then it must not mean much of anything because no one is really doing much to the culture and the church. And if it doesn't really mean much, then it must mean that God is being stymied in this area. And since God is not stymied, I tend to end out right back in the same place — apostles in this era, even if they exist, are not about being identified, but about their service. Let's leave it that way.

[Ohio]

Bro Ohio, are you trying to send me on a wild goose chase? Of course if Kangas ever claimed handed down from Lee deputy authority they wouldn't publicize it on their website ..

No, just trying to help your friend Zeek. I did an advanced google search on their website, but did not find that comment by RK.

[awareness]

apostles in this era, even if they exist, are not about being identified, but about their service. Let's leave it that way.Hey, just for fun let's list names of possible apostles today.

How about :

Billy Graham. Is/was he an apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter either way?

What about Rick Warren, of Purpose Drive Life fame? Apostle, yes or no? Does it matter either way?

What about Jerry Falwell? Was he an apostle or not? Yes or no? Did it matter either way?

What about Pat Robertson? Apostle, yes or no? Does it make a difference either way?

What about John Hagee? Apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter which it is?

What about Joyce Meyers? An apostle like some women that traveled with Paul? Yes or no? Does it make a difference one way or the other?

Anyone else anyone would like to ponder if they were a modern day apostle? The list of possibilities is long.

Was Witness Lee an apostle? Extract the authority element, does it really matter either way?

As much as I've enjoyed this discussion about apostles, I have to say, this concern about modern day apostles is superfluous to the max. If it is so that, there are modern day apostles, it's God's concern, workings, and business. Not ours. If they exist, should we grant special authority to them? Is that the point of discovering modern day apostles? To accept, submit too, and follow and obey a man?

[zeek]

Hey, just for fun let's list names of possible apostles today.

How about :


Billy Graham. Is/was he an apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter either way?

What about Rick Warren, of Purpose Drive Life fame? Apostle, yes or no? Does it matter either way?

What about Jerry Falwell? Was he an apostle or not? Yes or no? Did it matter either way?

What about Pat Robertson? Apostle, yes or no? Does it make a difference either way?

What about John Hagee? Apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter which it is?

What about Joyce Meyers? An apostle like some women that traveled with Paul? Yes or no? Does it make a difference one way or the other?

Anyone else anyone would like to ponder if they were a modern day apostle? The list of possibilities is long.

Was Witness Lee an apostle? Extract the authority element, does it really matter either way?




All of the above?

[UntoHim]

As far as I'm aware, none of these people have claimed to be an apostle, nor has anyone claimed that they are an apostle...except of course for Witness Lee. And how convenient is this since Witness Lee is one of the major concerns of this forum!

Let's keep our eye on the ball guys.

[OBW]

Hey, just for fun let's list names of possible apostles today.

How about :

. . . . Only one has what I would consider reasonable stature. And he would scoff at the suggestion. So I will stick with Unto's line. They ain't claiming it and I won't saddle any of them with it.

[Ohio]

And another LRC error. They are so sure that John is the really important gospel. But if that is true, why did God have the others written first, and seemingly three passes at much of the same things, then later add that different gospel by John? Maybe the content of the other three is three times more important than the one. (Probably not that simple.) Or the three are the core, but the one is also needed. And if you are going to focus on only part of it, the weight of the three may just indicate relative importance in some ways. You can be obedient without getting into so much of the spirituality. But if you try to be spiritual without the obedience, you are just a sham.
It's not just the LRC that sometimes views the Gospel of John uniquely, but that should not in any way diminish the importance of the other three. Each gospel has its own viewpoint, as inspired by the Spirit. I see no LRC error on this point, in fact, the LSM might have been faulted for diminishing the value of John in favor of their more legalistic teachings on the "kingdom" found in Matthew.

Dr. Philip Comfort, formerly a minister in the Church in Columbus at its inception, was passionate about the gospel of John, his favorite book of the Bible. He eventually departed from the LRC after he was badly abused by TC of Cleveland, whose chief rebuke was that PC was "too theoretical." Amazingly, no one else, including all the GLA leaders, felt this way about PC and his ministry until the "wise seer" TC was able to point this out.

I do believe the gospel of John is unique because of the time it was written. Instead of being written by a young teenage John, an eye-witness of all these events from the earliest days of Jesus' ministry, it was written by an aging and mature John, who had benefited from decades of serving the Lord in the churches.

[awareness]

I do believe the gospel of John is unique because of the time it was written. Instead of being written by a young teenage John, an eye-witness of all these events from the earliest days of Jesus' ministry, it was written by an aging and mature John, who had benefited from decades of serving the Lord in the churches.But Act 4:13 says that John was illiterate. So likely the Gospel of John was written by John's followers, in the school of John in Ephesus. But we don't know that for sure, cuz the gospel of John was written anonymously.

[Ohio]

But Act 4:13 says that John was illiterate. So likely the Gospel of John was written by John's followers, in the school of John in Ephesus. But we don't know that for sure, cuz the gospel of John was written anonymously.

No it doesn't.

You are twisting words to discredit the scriptures.

Go back and study what it really says.

[UntoHim]

Acts 4:13 does not say John could not read or write, only that he spoke as if he had no formal education and lacked the eloquence of the leaders and elders (probably highly educated Rabbis, etc) of whom he was addressing. But even if he could not write he could have dictated to a third party. Either way it does not change the message and truth of the Gospel.

Stop trying to change the subject Harold.

[Ohio]

But Act 4:13 says that John was illiterate. So likely the Gospel of John was written by John's followers, in the school of John in Ephesus. But we don't know that for sure, cuz the gospel of John was written anonymously.

The authorship of John has always been known by the church.

Noted historian Phillip Schaff says, "The external proof of the Johannean authorship is as strong, yea stronger than that of the genuineness of any classical writer of antiquity, and goes up to the very beginning of the second century, within hailing distance of the living John. It includes Catholic writers, heretics, and heathen enemies."

Is your goal here to discredit the scriptures an attempt to live out your signature line -- "there's a serpent in every paradise?"

[awareness]

Acts 4:13 does not say John could not read or write, only that he spoke as if he had no formal education and lacked the eloquence of the leaders and elders (probably highly educated Rabbis, etc) of whom he was addressing. But even if he could not write he could have dictated to a third party. Either way it does not change the message and truth of the Gospel.
Stop trying to change the subject Harold. Yes, of course, the truth is in the pudding.
But if the subject continues on something wrong, isn't that even more off subject?

Strong :
G62
ἀγράμματος
agrammatos
ag-ram-mat-os
From G1 (as negative particle) and G1121; unlettered, that is, illiterate: - unlearned.

Sorry for the interruption. Continue on ....

[ZNPaaneah]

Yes, of course, the truth is in the pudding.

But if the subject continues on something wrong, isn't that even more off subject?

Strong :
G62
ἀγράμματος
agrammatos
ag-ram-mat-os
From G1 (as negative particle) and G1121; unlettered, that is, illiterate: - unlearned.

Sorry for the interruption. Continue on ....

so you're saying the gospel of john may have been written in the same way sports autobiographies are?

[Ohio]

Yes, of course, the truth is in the pudding.

But if the subject continues on something wrong, isn't that even more off subject?

Strong :
G62
ἀγράμματος
agrammatos
ag-ram-mat-os
From G1 (as negative particle) and G1121; unlettered, that is, illiterate: - unlearned.

The word "agrammatos" (Acts 4.13) means unlearned, illiterate, unlettered. This demeaning word was spoken by the Sanhedrin, not following some scholastic aptitude test for reading proficiency, but to discredit Peter and John's message about the risen Savior. From the context, the meaning is "unlettered," indicating they were uneducated the letters of the law. The Jews were extremely proud of their "letter-learning."

This is also confirmed by the other descriptor assigned to Peter and John in 4.13. The Jewish leaders called them "unlearned" which is the greek word "idiotes" from where we get the derogatory "idiots." This word means uneducated, untrained, unskilled, hence a "layman," one who is not a trained or skilled "professional."

Apparently some in Corinth also said the Apostle Paul was an "idiot" in speech, labeling him an uneducated or untrained speaker (II Cor 11.6) like Peter and John.

[Ohio]

so you're saying the gospel of john may have been written in the same way sports autobiographies are?

They employed Holy "Ghost writers." :thumbsup:

[ZNPaaneah]

They employed Holy "Ghost writers." :thumbsup:

So after watching James, Peter and Paul get imprisoned and martyred,and after seeing John boiled in oil and exciled, someone agreed to "ghost" write a book of the Bible? Is this guy now the patron saint of ghost writers?

[Ohio]

So after watching James, Peter and Paul get imprisoned and martyred, and after seeing John boiled in oil and exiled, someone agreed to "ghost" write a book of the Bible?

Is this guy now the patron saint of ghost writers?
Very funny.

When I hear so many liberals today promote the ideas of the skeptics and the atheists, I remember the dialog between Abraham and the rich man in Luke 16.

The rich man argued, "No, father Abraham, if only someone from the dead would go to my five brothers, then they will repent."

But Abraham said to him, "if they refuse to hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead."

[awareness]

No it doesn't.
You are twisting words to discredit the scripturesYeah right. I'm using scripture to discredit scripture.

For someone that believes scripture is Gods' word, you sure have trouble with it when it says something beyond your presumptions and traditions.

[Cal]

Since we've done such a good job of deciding whether there are still apostles today, (that's a joke, son), why don't we move on to the subject of what kind of authority they have today and how is it enforced?


If there are apostles, who should follow them?

How much should we encourage others to follow them?

If "follow" the wrong word, should we use some other term, like "give ear to," etc?

If someone doesn't follow them, are they outside the move of God?

What should be our attitude about "non-heeders?"

And, finally, do any of the above considerations make vivid how warped movements are which insist their favorite son is the one everyone should follow?

[Ohio]

Yeah right. I'm using scripture to discredit scripture.
For someone that believes scripture is Gods' word, you sure have trouble with it when it says something beyond your presumptions and traditions.

This is not a matter of getting my presumptions and traditions offended. This is a matter of understanding what the original text actually said. When you are standing before the Jewish Sanhedrin, being "illiterate" does not mean you cannot write your own name, it means you cannot decipher the letter of the law.

The Bible is filled with sayings and idioms which do not translate word for word outside of their context.

Btw, the English language is the same way.

[Ohio]

Since we've done such a good job of deciding whether there are still apostles today, (that's a joke, son), why don't we move on to the subject of what kind of authority they have today and how is it enforced?


If there are apostles, who should follow them?
How much should we encourage others to follow them?
If "follow" the wrong word, should we use some other term, like "give ear to," etc?
If someone doesn't follow them, are they outside the move of God?
What should be our attitude about "non-heeders?"
And, finally, do any of the above considerations make vivid how warped movements are which insist their favorite son is the one everyone should follow?



If I could make some observations ...

Some of these same points were debated amongst the Corinthians, and Paul concluded "all are yours." When it comes to uplifting one above another, whether they be apostles or co-workers or full-timers, all are nothing, and Christ is all in all.

Most of these points, obviously taken from the LC context, assume there is only one apostle, or group of blendeds speaking as "one." Hence, these points, unfortunately, might be relevant to them. For example, the entire conflict which resulted in the quarantine of TC, could have boiled down to just one question, "who is your apostle?"

This question then translates into -- Who must we follow? Who must we heed? How do we judge those who disobey?

[ZNPaaneah]

Yeah right. I'm using scripture to discredit scripture.

For someone that believes scripture is Gods' word, you sure have trouble with it when it says something beyond your presumptions and traditions.

I don't get the point. It wasn't John that said he was illiterate, it was someone who was insulting him saying it. Second, it was said when John was a teenager, and he wrote the gospel when he was the "aged" apostle. 50 years is a long time to learn how to write, especially for someone who had given their life to "the ministry of the word" Acts 6.

So does the Bible really say that John the aged apostle was unable to write? No. Does it even say that the Sanhedrin and Pharisees felt he was unable to write at the time that the gospel of John was written? No. You are constructing an argument out of tissue paper.

[awareness]

But Abraham said to him, "if they refuse to hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead."Of course they believed someone could rise from the dead. It was common Greek/Roman mythology in widespread currency in those days. It would have been easy for anyone to believe in such things. They would have took to it like the realization that ice is water.

[ZNPaaneah]

Since we've done such a good job of deciding whether there are still apostles today, (that's a joke, son), why don't we move on to the subject of what kind of authority they have today and how is it enforced?


If there are apostles, who should follow them?

How much should we encourage others to follow them?

If "follow" the wrong word, should we use some other term, like "give ear to," etc?

If someone doesn't follow them, are they outside the move of God?

What should be our attitude about "non-heeders?"

And, finally, do any of the above considerations make vivid how warped movements are which insist their favorite son is the one everyone should follow?


I am leaning towards my "pioneer plant" hypothesis and a definition of Apostle as one that brings the gospel and churches to a region previously not evangelized.

With that in mind,

1. For the most part today we would not see Apostles operating since most of the inhabited earth has been evangelized. (To me, saying that we don't have apostles today is not equivalent to saying that we don't have the gift of apostles in the same way that pioneer plants can still be found even though they are marginalized at best).

2. If you were in a land that did not have the gospel, perhaps there is a place like that today. If so I would encourage the raising up of churches by an apostle as a positive thing. However, in the US I would not encourage anyone to follow an "apostle".

3. Once again, in the US I would not encourage others to "give ear" to someone who labels themself as "the apostle".

4. I'll let God judge who is outside the move of God. However, the idea that you have to label yourself an apostle does, to me, strongly suggest you are outside of the realm of other fundamental christians in this country.

5. I don't know who you are referring to by "non heeders".

6. I think my illustration of a pioneer plant explains how and why God would give a gift that was very important at the beginning of this age and since then has almost disappeared from view, and yet still exists.

[ZNPaaneah]

Very funny.

When I hear so many liberals today promote the ideas of the skeptics and the atheists, I remember the dialog between Abraham and the rich man in Luke 16.

The rich man argued, "No, father Abraham, if only someone from the dead would go to my five brothers, then they will repent."

But Abraham said to him, "if they refuse to hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead."

Today rising from the dead is very common. There is a book about a little kid that died and came back and told his parents and friends some of the things he learned while dead. In fact the experience is so common that they are currently experimenting in operating rooms by putting signs on the wall that only someone who was looking down from the ceiling would be able to see.

[awareness]

The authorship of John has always been known by the church.

Noted historian Phillip Schaff says, "The external proof of the Johannean authorship is as strong, yea stronger than that of the genuineness of any classical writer of antiquity, and goes up to the very beginning of the second century, within hailing distance of the living John. It includes Catholic writers, heretics, and heathen enemies."You sound like sister Steward, and her "Received Text" KJV only position.

So my answer to you is the same answer I gave to her : Without autographed copies of the gospels, no one knows for certain, and can't know. And that goes for me and you, and Phillip Schaff.

Is your goal here to discredit the scriptures an attempt to live out your signature line -- "there's a serpent in every paradise?"I confess I never connected those dots. But yes, there's a serpent in every paradise.

[Ohio]

Of course they believed someone could rise from the dead. It was common Greek/Roman mythology in widespread currency in those days. It would have been easy for anyone to believe in such things. They would have took to it like the realization that ice is water.

Today rising from the dead is very common. There is a book about a little kid that died and came back and told his parents and friends some of the things he learned while dead. In fact the experience is so common that they are currently experimenting in operating rooms by putting signs on the wall that only someone who was looking down from the ceiling would be able to see.

So all that mythology was after all true? :thumbsup:

On a more "serious" note, "rising from the dead" means that you once were "among the dead," as the rich man was, and then you rose up. That's how I understand it. The Lord went to Hades, past its gates, went among the dead, preached to them good news, and then rose from among the dead. I'm not quite sure that just rising to the ceiling, as the young boy was, and then getting resuscitated, actually qualifies. If one has not yet gone thru the "gates of hades," has he really risen "from the dead" as Abraham has said?

But ..... since I have no experience in this area, I can only go by what others have said.

[ZNPaaneah]

So all that mythology was after all true? :thumbsup:

On a more "serious" note, "rising from the dead" means that you once were "among the dead," as the rich man was, and then you rose up. That's how I understand it. The Lord went to Hades, past its gates, went among the dead, preached to them good news, and then rose from among the dead. I'm not quite sure that just rising to the ceiling, as the young boy was, and then getting resuscitated, actually qualifies. If one has not yet gone thru the "gates of hades," has he really risen "from the dead" as Abraham has said?

But ..... since I have no experience in this area, I can only go by what others have said.

Well the little boys experience was much more than "rising to the ceiling". For one he met his sister that he was unaware he had (she was a miscarriage).

[Ohio]

You sound like sister Steward, and her "Received Text" KJV only position.

So my answer to you is the same answer I gave to her : Without autographed copies of the gospels, no one knows for certain, and can't know. And that goes for me and you, and Phillip Schaff.


I sound nothing like Steward. How insulting! :crazy:

.

If the apostle John were here to autograph his gospel, you would still be suspicious.

[Cal]

This question then translates into -- Who must we follow? Who must we heed? How do we judge those who disobey?

And my view is these questions themselves are flawed. Because to answer them we must be able to know and agree upon without question who these special apostles are, and I don't think we can.

We can, however, know the speaking of the Spirit. I think that someone could make the case that, for example, Rick Warren is an apostle with a word for the entire Body of Christ. But making that an "official" (read "required") position opens big cans of worms.

I think we do well enough to hear the speaking of the Spirit through brother Warren. If you hear Him, heed his voice. If you don't, move on. But it seems to me that outward cheerleading let alone pressure to follow a particular man is not only dangerous, it is unnecessary. If you hear the Lord speaking in a brother's teaching, by all means, cheerlead his teaching. But don't cheerlead him.

[Ohio]

Well the little boys experience was much more than "rising to the ceiling". For one he met his sister that he was unaware he had (she was a miscarriage).

Fascinating.

Then God honors life after conception? Then abortion is murder.

Think about how many murderers we now have in politics, medicine, and the courts.

[Ohio]

And my view is these questions themselves are flawed. Because to answer them we must be able to know and agree upon without question who these special apostles are, and I don't think we can.

We can, however, know the speaking of the Spirit. I think that someone could make the case that, for example, Rick Warren is an apostle with a word for the entire Body of Christ. But making that an "official" (read "required") position opens big cans of worms.

I think we do well enough to hear the speaking of the Spirit through brother Warren. If you hear Him, heed his voice. If you don't, move on. But it seems to me that outward cheerleading let alone pressure to follow a particular man is not only dangerous, it is unnecessary. If you hear the Lord speaking in a brother's teaching, by all means, cheerlead his teaching. But don't cheerlead him.

Good points. I agree.

The calling and commissioning of the genuine apostles by the Head relates more to the anointing upon these brothers, and the spiritual power they have over the forces of darkness, than any kind of assumed or presumed authority over other brothers.

WL gave endless messages concerning the "authority was by the growth in life." He used Aaron's rod that budded as an example of this authority based on life, assuming his own was the highest of all. When push came to shove, however, he would use his self-assumed authority to crush the internal critics, and the legal system to crush his external opposers. Quite different from the authority we see with the earliest Apostles.

Concerning your opening statement -- "we must be able to know and agree upon without question who these special apostles are, and I don't think we can," -- this demand sets the bar too high. The early church was never in agreement concerning Paul. Also, it was not too long before Jerusalem placed James above the other apostles.

[zeek]

The authorship of John has always been known by the church.



How did they always know it?


Noted historian Phillip Schaff says, "The external proof of the Johannean authorship is as strong, yea stronger than that of the genuineness of any classical writer of antiquity, and goes up to the very beginning of the second century, within hailing distance of the living John. It includes Catholic writers, heretics, and heathen enemies."


Sadly, Dr. Schaff died 118 years ago and consequently didn't have the benefit to the research that has been done since his time. Be that as it may, what external proof is Mr. Schaff referring to? How strong is the genuineness of any classical writers of antiquity? What did those Catholics, heretics and heathen say that we should believe them?

[Cal]

Concerning your opening statement -- "we must be able to know and agree upon without question who these special apostles are, and I don't think we can," -- this demand sets the bar too high. The early church was never in agreement concerning Paul. Also, it was not too long before Jerusalem placed James above the other apostles.

I meant that in order to have the kind of order and conformity to the apostle the LRC envisioned there would have to be much more agreement on who the apostle is and therefore much more reasonable evidence.

That is, to expect everyone to follow one man the evidence has to be there that would reasonably compel everyone to do so. The LRC never had that for Lee.

They just convinced themselves they did and expected everyone to join in their decision. That works for a handful of fanatics, but to reasonably expect the entire Body of Christ to even consider following one man you have to have a whole lot more evidence than even we gave Lee credit for having.

[Ohio]

How did they always know it?


How do you know who wrote the Gettysburg Address?

Sadly, Dr. Schaff died 118 years ago and consequently didn't have the benefit to the research that has been done since his time. Be that as it may, what external proof is Mr. Schaff referring to? How strong is the genuineness of any classical writers of antiquity? What did those Catholics, heretics and heathen say that we should believe them?

I only typed his opening sentence. This section in his book is too long for me to type. (See Vol. 1, pages 701-708 for external evidences, and pp. 709-714 for internal evidences.)

You say Schaff died 118 years ago, yet he did address many modern criticisms, probably many more than you think. Schaff's next section is #84 "Critical Review of the Johannean Problem." pp. 715-724.

His subtitles are:


The Problem Stated
The Assaults on the Fourth Gospel
The Defense of the Fourth Gospel
The Difficulties of the Anti-Johannean Theory

[Ohio]

I meant that in order to have the kind of order and conformity to the apostle the LRC envisioned there would have to be much more agreement on who the apostle is and therefore much more reasonable evidence.

That is, to expect everyone to follow one man the evidence has to be there that would reasonably compel everyone to do so. The LRC never had that for Lee.

They just convinced themselves they did and expected everyone to join in their decision. That works for a handful of fanatics, but to reasonably expect the entire Body of Christ to even consider following one man you have to have a whole lot more evidence than even we gave Lee credit for having.

This became a major flaw in the MOTA paradigm. Since Paul never had universal agreement concerning his singular apostleship as some MOTA, how in the world could we expect to have others believe WL was that.

To be honest, starting in the mid-70's, I did believe that WL would be recognized as a universal MOTA once the litigation on the books G-M and MB was completed. After the books were dealt with in the mid 80's, I went thru a period of time waiting on the Lord to fulfill my expectations. I assumed the "new way" would expedite the Lord's anointing.

I guess i was wrong about that one. :frown:

[Cal]

We were all young, naive and, most importantly, ignorant, back then.

[awareness]

We were all young, naive and, most importantly, ignorant, back then.Yes we were. That's why I decided to do my best not to be ignorant like that anymore. Even if it puts me at odds with my Christian brothers and sisters, which is pretty common now.

[Cal]

This became a major flaw in the MOTA paradigm. Since Paul never had universal agreement concerning his singular apostleship as some MOTA, how in the world could we expect to have others believe WL was that.


This is why I think the MOTA teaching and others like it are not intended to get everyone on board, but are in fact intended to give the LRC participants excuses for ignoring and separating themselves from the rest of the Body of Christ.

If they concoct some non-negotiable principle which the rest of the Body fails to live up to (MOTA, VOTA, local ground, gospel of the kingdom, God's economy, whatever), then they can excuse themselves from the inconvenient business of having to maintain fellowship with the rest of the Body.

This is basically what they are doing. It's all just an excuse for playing in their own comfortable little sandbox, while pretending it's the only sandbox around.

[Ohio]

We were all young, naive and, most importantly, ignorant, back then.

We trusted in people who actually did little to earn that trust.

[Ohio]

Yes we were. That's why I decided to do my best not to be ignorant like that anymore. Even if it puts me at odds with my Christian brothers and sisters, which is pretty common now.

It's one thing to no longer trust contemporary leaders who have never earned that trust, but it's another thing to no longer trust those who have been proven over the span of 2,000 years.

[zeek]

How do you know who wrote the Gettysburg Address?



It's well documented with multiple sources of attestation.

Here are a few more sources on the authorship of the Gospel of John:

Encyclopedia Britanica says:


Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by John, “the beloved disciple” of Jesus, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John and based his writing on John’s teachings and testimonies. Moreover, the facts that several episodes in the life of Jesus are recounted out of sequence with the Synoptics and the final chapter appears to be a later addition suggest that the text may be a composite. The Gospel’s place and date of composition are also uncertain; many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/22897/Anatolia), in about ad 100 for the purpose of communicating the truths about Christ to Christians of Hellenistic background.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's lengthy article on the subject supports the traditional view. It's linked here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm#III

The author does make the following admission however:

"The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church. Since David Friedrich Strauss and Ferdinand Christian Baur this denial has been postulated in advance in most of the critical inquiries into the Gospels and the life of Jesus. Influenced by this prevailing tendency, Alfred Loisy also reached the point where he openly denied the historicity of the Fourth Gospel; in his opinion the author desired, not to write a history, but to clothe in symbolical garb his religious ideas and theological speculations."

Adolf von Harnack (7 May 1851–10 June 1930), was a German theologian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) and prominent church historian stated the following

"In particular, the fourth Gospel, which does not emanate or profess to emanate from the apostle John, cannot be taken as an historical authority in the ordinary meaning of the word. The author of it acted with sovereign freedom, transposed events and put them in a strange light, drew up the discourses himself, and illustrated 22 great thoughts by imaginary situations. Although, his work is not altogether devoid of a real, if scarcely recognizable, traditional element, it can hardly make any claim to be considered an authority for Jesus’ history; only little of what he says can be accepted, and that little with caution. On the other hand, it is an authority of the first rank for answering the question, What vivid views of Jesus’ person, what kind of light and warmth, did the Gospel disengage?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#cite_note-JInt-3

Marilyn Mellowes http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/

"Tradition has credited John, the son of Zebedee and an apostle of Jesus, with the authorship of the fourth gospel. Most scholars dispute this notion; some speculate that the work was actually produced by a group of early Christians somewhat isolated from other early Christian communities. Tradition also places its composition in or near Ephesus (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/arch/ephesus.html), although lower Syria or Lebanon are more likely locations. The most likely time for the completion of this gospel is between 90 and 110 CE."

[ZNPaaneah]

This is why I think the MOTA teaching and others like it are not intended to get everyone on board, but are in fact intended to give the LRC participants excuses for ignoring and separating themselves from the rest of the Body of Christ.

If they concoct some non-negotiable principle which the rest of the Body fails to live up to (MOTA, VOTA, local ground, gospel of the kingdom, God's economy, whatever), then they can excuse themselves from the inconvenient business of having to maintain fellowship with the rest of the Body.

This is basically what they are doing. It's all just an excuse for playing in their own comfortable little sandbox, while pretending it's the only sandbox around.

This is a much better focus, is it a matter of the faith to receive some brother as "MOTA" or "The Apostle", etc. If I refuse to receive Paul, or Peter, Or James or WL as "MOTA" is that a basis to cut off fellowship? Is this a matter of the faith?

To me that is clear for all genuine Christians that this is not a matter of the faith and it is not a basis to be divisive. If a church doesn't want to receive LSM publications is that a basis to cut them off? Absolutely not. It is not a matter of the faith.

If a church does not want to attend LSM trainings is that a basis to cut them off? Absolutely not, it is not a matter of the faith.

[Ohio]

This is a much better focus, is it a matter of the faith to receive some brother as "MOTA" or "The Apostle", etc. If I refuse to receive Paul, or Peter, Or James or WL as "MOTA" is that a basis to cut off fellowship? Is this a matter of the faith?

To me that is clear for all genuine Christians that this is not a matter of the faith and it is not a basis to be divisive. If a church doesn't want to receive LSM publications is that a basis to cut them off? Absolutely not. It is not a matter of the faith.

If a church does not want to attend LSM trainings is that a basis to cut them off? Absolutely not, it is not a matter of the faith.

Good point. This is exactly what happened to Mansfield, Columbus, and Toronto.

Paul was an apostle to the uncircumcision, the nations, those that Jews in Jerusalem did not even want to hear the good news. Hence, the early church was fine with this arrangement.

Paul never forced the Jewish believers to acknowledge his apostleship. Neither did he prevent Peter from coming to the Gentile lands.

So for LSM to demand that TC or DYL or anybody else to receive WL and his teachings exclusively is for them to become the most divisive of all Christians.

[rayliotta]

Good point. This is exactly what happened to Mansfield, Columbus, and Toronto.

Paul was an apostle to the uncircumcision, the nations, those that Jews in Jerusalem did not even want to hear the good news. Hence, the early church was fine with this arrangement.

Paul never forced the Jewish believers to acknowledge his apostleship. Neither did he prevent Peter from coming to the Gentile lands.

So for LSM to demand that TC or DYL or anybody else to receive WL and his teachings exclusively is for them to become the most divisive of all Christians.

Yet isn't this how Anaheim actually views the split? It's east/west, right/left, circumcision/uncircumcision.

You said, "Paul never forced the Jewish believers to acknowledge his apostleship." Well, as far as Anaheim is concerned, they never *forced* anyone to accept their authority, either. But as long as the Midwest does not accept their authority, they will remain...separate. Like the separation between Jerusalem and Paul's ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Yet isn't this how Anaheim actually views the split? It's east/west, right/left, circumcision/uncircumcision.
You said, "Paul never forced the Jewish believers to acknowledge his apostleship." Well, as far as Anaheim is concerned, they never *forced* anyone to accept their authority, either. But as long as the Midwest does not accept their authority, they will remain...separate. Like the separation between Jerusalem and Paul's ministry.

Say what you want, the quarantine letter of TC was the BBs forcing TC to accept the "apostolic authority" of LSM.

In that letter their primary accusation was accusing TC of "separating themselves from the vast majority of the churches, saints, leading brothers, and coworkers throughout the whole earth who are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry”

In essence he and the churches associated with TC were excommunicated because they were not "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WN and WL", of course it is LSM and the BBs that define what exactly that means.

[OBW]

Well the little boys experience was much more than "rising to the ceiling". For one he met his sister that he was unaware he had (she was a miscarriage).I realize that there are a lot who think there is something to all of this near-death experience stuff. They are busy writing book after book about it.

And when they happen to people in the Far East, their stories look like their afterlife beliefs. It tends to suggest that we create things in our heads based on what we believe about life, death, and the thought that we could be dying.

But why should God now actually be sending a bunch of people back from the dead to tell us these fantastic stories (almost exclusively to those who already believe anyway) but wouldn't send someone back to warn the family of the rich man?

It doesn't add up.

[OBW]

Say what you want, the quarantine letter of TC was the BBs forcing TC to accept the "apostolic authority" of LSM.

In that letter their primary accusation was accusing TC of "separating themselves from the vast majority of the churches, saints, leading brothers, and coworkers throughout the whole earth who are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry”

In essence he and the churches associated with TC were excommunicated because they were not "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WN and WL", of course it is LSM and the BBs that define what exactly that means.And this is where we tongue-in-cheek suggest that the thread is once again off-topic because there is absolutely no evidence that any of the BBs are apostles at any meaningful level, therefore their quarantine of TC would be meaningless.

[ZNPaaneah]

I realize that there are a lot who think there is something to all of this near-death experience stuff. They are busy writing book after book about it.

And when they happen to people in the Far East, their stories look like their afterlife beliefs. It tends to suggest that we create things in our heads based on what we believe about life, death, and the thought that we could be dying.

But why should God now actually be sending a bunch of people back from the dead to tell us these fantastic stories (almost exclusively to those who already believe anyway) but wouldn't send someone back to warn the family of the rich man?

It doesn't add up.

If you are referring to Luke 16 God didn't say he wouldn't send people back from the dead, what he said is that if people don't believe Moses and the Prophets neither will they believe if one were to rise from the dead.

This is very different, and the only way to prove that God is right is by sending people back from the dead.

As to people in the Far East dying, my personal experience of that was talking to a Buddhist. He had died in the operating room while in the Army. He was resucitated. His experience was very similar and, surprisingly, he said he met Jesus. I found this very strange since he is a Buddhist, so we talked and he explained that after his experience he did try going to christian churches but didn't understand what they were talking about. But he told me clearly and emphatically that although he is a Buddhist he knows that when he dies he'll see Jesus.

[ZNPaaneah]

And this is where we tongue-in-cheek suggest that the thread is once again off-topic because there is absolutely no evidence that any of the BBs are apostles at any meaningful level, therefore their quarantine of TC would be meaningless.

Yes, it may technically be off topic but I think all of the seeming disagreement on this thread was the fact that the topic was not well defined.

I don't think the issue was the apostolic gift, but the apostolic authority. What everyone really seemed to take issue with was people calling themselves apostles and taking the authority of an apostle. Those of us who were looking at this as a gift continually said that the exercise of the gift was not dependent on the title. If you remember Igzy gave an analogy of Apostles equaling the uniform of a policeman and I argued it was more like the bullet the poleiceman shoots the killer with that saves my life. I was viewing Apostle as a gift, Igzy was viewing it as authority. The uniform is a sign of the authority. Also, by definition Apostles will exercise this gift in regions where they are not received. That is why it is often necessary for God to do signs and wonders to accompany the work of an apostle. This is also why it is no longer necessary in most cases for the signs and wonders to accompany the work of ministry.

So, I think the real focus of this thread has really been on the exercise of the apostolic authority. If you define it this way I would agree with Igzy's post#1 and #5. The Bible is our authority.

One excellent example of this is in the practice of excommunication. In that case it was the Apostle Paul who prompted and made a case for excommunication to the church and it was the church that agreed. So if we can adjust our focus a little I think the example with TC is on topic.

Also, although they may not have used this language (I'll double check) the BBs were clearly miffed that TC was not receiving WL as the MOTA.

[Cal]

I think this sums up the thread pretty well.

I think all of us are comfortable with the idea of apostolic gifting still being given. This satisfies those who have brought to our attention Eph 4:11. Ephesians 4:11 speaks of gifts, not offices. Note it says shepherds, not elders.

The question is, what is our ground for saying there is an office of apostle, and further, that it no longer exists?

The ground is, this is the judgment of the Body of Christ. The vast majority of serious students of the Bible agree that apostle of the rank and authority of the original 15 or 16 no longer exist because of their required being directly commissioned by the Lord Jesus. Those men had the office of apostle, and men of such type can no longer exist.

Now "can no longer exist" is not an absolute statement. It is situational and practical and borne of centuries of precedent. The Lord Jesus could directly commission someone today if he wanted to in the post-ascension manner he commissioned Paul. However, it is reasonable to assume that such an appointment would include the proof of the power of signs and wonders. It is unreasonable to assume the Lord would expect us just to take someone's word that He appeared to him directly and commissioned him with the authoritative office of apostle.

[Cal]

Note in the last nineteen centuries no one (but those now believed to have been mistaken) has claimed to have been directly commissioned by the Lord in the manner Paul was.

Further, no historical spiritual giants whom above all others might seem to us to deserve the title of apostle has ever claimed it or accepted it.

[OBW]

Note in the last nineteen centuries no one (but those now believed to have been mistaken) has claimed to have been directly commissioned by the Lord in the manner Paul was.

Further, no historical spiritual giants whom above all others might seem to us to deserve the title of apostle has ever claimed it or accepted it.This is the most important point made. And while it has been made over and over, it is now beginning to be accepted as likely true.

The thing that is still a little disconcerting to me is what ZNP refers to as "apostolic authority." While I would not diminish whatever "commission" anyone actually has from God, whether explicit or just the truth without being stated as such, it is the "exercise of authority" that is presumed to come out of "apostolic authority." That then presumes that whoever is an apostle is exercising authority. And I would suggest that in this day and age (and the age has been going on since they first apostles began to die away) that no one is "exercising authority" but rather teaching with clarity and wisdom. Those who recognize it, like recognizing Jesus' speaking with authority, will take note. But it will not be an authority thing, but the clear speaking of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Note in the last nineteen centuries no one (but those now believed to have been mistaken) has claimed to have been directly commissioned by the Lord in the manner Paul was.

Further, no historical spiritual giants whom above all others might seem to us to deserve the title of apostle has ever claimed it or accepted it.

What about the Popes?:p

[ZNPaaneah]

Does anyone know Witness Lee's take on Ephesians 4:11? I imagine it would have put him in a bind. If he said apostles continued past Paul, the next question would be, who were (and are) they? Second, if he said no, then the "ministry of the age" argument is undermined.

He taught that the word apostle means sent one. if the Lord sends you to speak to your friend, or coworker, or family member, then you are by definition a sent one. So all of us at some point or another operate as apostles. However, that doesn't mean we are "gifts" to the Body. The gifts were given to perfect the Body. Gifts operate by training others to do the same thing they do. Evangelists train you to evangelize. Shepherds train you to shepherd. Teachers train you to teach.

I think we have done a reasonable job in this thread showing that this definition of Apostle is quite inadequate. I like my analogy with pioneer species, an apostle is gifted to go into an area where there are not christians and churches and change the environment to a Christian ecosystem. If they are successful their gift will become marginalized and recede into the background.

So WL saw himself as "The Apostle of the Age" that could train and perfect all the others to be mini apostles.

[OBW]

Gifts operate by training others to do the same thing they do. Evangelists train you to evangelize. Shepherds train you to shepherd. Teachers train you to teach.I realize that we've been taught that. But lately I've begun to wonder if it is really true. Are we evangelized so that we will evangelize? Or are we evangelized so that we will be evangelized? Are we taught so that we will teach, or are we taught so that we will learn and do?

I note that Jesus told a few to "teach them to obey." He said to make them followers.

Now I realize that if there are to be more evangelists, then someone must either be gifted by the Holy Spirit to be an evangelist, or . . . . I think that the definition of being a gift is just that, to be gifted. And since it is not a matter of just doing what comes naturally (even if it sometimes seems partly that way) but of what the Spirit gifts us to do, then who needs someone else to train you to be your gift?

And, of course, the obvious flaw in that view is that teachers may be gifted at teaching, but they have to learn what it is they are going to teach. So there is a learning part, maybe to a whole lot of the so-called gifts. In other words, there is an aspect of being given a gift, but there is also at least some times an aspect of training that goes with it. You don't just get the gift of preaching. There have been some people who just had a knack for saying the right kinds of things and got followings. One of those was some kid back in the 50s (I think) who dumped it all when he grew up because it was just something natural. Can't remember the name, but it was a big, national thing at the time.

Obviously I'm not clear on this. But despite the teaching we got in those verses in Ephesians about the Big Letter whatevers making little letter whatevers of the same kind, it doesn't actually say that. It just says they perfect the rest of us for the work of ministry. I wonder if we are still stuck in a presumption that "ministry" is an automatic reference back to the immediate items before rather than a whole lot of things, including the ministry of being righteous in your daily life (rather than running people off the road and "checking" about it so that you can be right about it (really need a tongue-in-cheek emoticon)).

In other words, we are perfected to be what we were intended to be. It takes things like evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc., to do that. But is what we are intended to be simply evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc? Or is it image-bearers. People expressing God in their whole life, not just their "religious" or "spiritual" life. In their letting people in as they enter the freeway as much or more than their "I've got a lot of knowledge about God" life.

Now I realize that I only quoted the little part that I spoke on above. But I might not entirely characterize the role of the apostle in the manner you did, but pretty close. I believe that it is even true of some other gifts. Things like signs and miracles. Or tongues. On the day of Pentecost, Peter and the others started speaking. They spoke clearly in many different languages that others there understood. That did two things. First it made a clear presentation of whatever they were saying (the gospel) to everyone. Second, it was clearly something beyond the natural capabilities of these people and it demonstrated a power beyond the mortal.

Then it was repeated with the Samaritans, and again at the house of Cornelius. It is not clear that these two were as much for the Samaritans and Gentiles as it was for the Jews to accept that God really was including them.

And besides the discussion in 1 Corinthians, are tongues mentioned again? That does not answer the obvious questions, but it does at least raise the question. The only place besides those three in Acts (if I am remembering properly) is in 1 Corinthians. And they are obviously going crazy with it. Not in a very Christian way. Makes you wonder whether Paul was sort of hinting at something when he suggested that they would eventually "pass away." Not trying to throw barbs at the Pentecostals/charismatics, but maybe the idea that it is some regular, ongoing, "everybody needs this" kind of thing is not right. Maybe it is a gift when needed. Like when there is a communication issue, or maybe part of that pioneering thing you were talking about. (Those people who can't even speak my language -- so why am I going to try and understand their "God" stuff in their language -- suddenly speak like natives. It happened only once, but it makes you a little less skeptical about that "God" thing they are talking about.)

Gifts as needed. Not necessarily as all-the-time abilities. Although some may be.

Just thinking out loud.

[TLFisher]

Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...??

I have never heard of Ron Kangas claiming to be God's deputy authority. At one time after brother Lee had passed, it was said the mantle was passed from brother Lee to the Blended brothers.
What I did hear last November was Ron Kangas backtracking on the issue of deputy authority. (The regional conference On the Cross.) The authority lies with God, not Witness Lee, and not the blended brothers. No one can claim such authority. To make such a claim illustrates no such authority.

[TLFisher]

Well, as far as Anaheim is concerned, they never *forced* anyone to accept their authority, either. But as long as the Midwest does not accept their authority, they will remain...separate. Like the separation between Jerusalem and Paul's ministry.

We know and they know this is posturing. A brother shared tonight a message from Witness Lee's in the late 80's. Per Witness Lee, If a local church doesn't want to take his ministry, they are still a local church. Practically and corporately.
There are similarities that exist between Anaheim of 1988 and that of Midwest localities around 2005. That is corporately turning from pushing the ministry and not postponing the local church life while bi-annual trainings are going on. Includes the video trainings too. There was the disclaimer saints who want the trainings can still take them in, but on their own time.
Problem is these statements are viewed as being negative towards the ministry, while the leaders taking this turn is from a focus on the ministry to being general corporately to where any Christian could walk through the door and realize they're home.
The posturing is they're not going to force any direction, but behind the scenes LSM and DCP employees were actively assisting local saints in taking action against their localities. What a coincidence these activities seemed to take place only in localities where real estate was at stake.
More of the posturing. Places such as Accra, Moses Lake, Westminster, Rosemead, Scottsdale, Raleigh, etc where there is a general expression of the church, but since "they're not in the flow, they're separate from us". This brings the discussion back to what brings us to assemble? Is it our mutual faith in Jesus Christ as our savior or is it taking the ministry as our corporate expression?

[rayliotta]

We know and they know this is posturing. A brother shared tonight a message from Witness Lee's in the late 80's. Per Witness Lee, If a local church doesn't want to take his ministry, they are still a local church. Practically and corporately.
There are similarities that exist between Anaheim of 1988 and that of Midwest localities around 2005. That is corporately turning from pushing the ministry and not postponing the local church life while bi-annual trainings are going on. Includes the video trainings too. There was the disclaimer saints who want the trainings can still take them in, but on their own time.
Problem is these statements are viewed as being negative towards the ministry, while the leaders taking this turn is from a focus on the ministry to being general corporately to where any Christian could walk through the door and realize they're home.
The posturing is they're not going to force any direction, but behind the scenes LSM and DCP employees were actively assisting local saints in taking action against their localities. What a coincidence these activities seemed to take place only in localities where real estate was at stake.
More of the posturing. Places such as Accra, Moses Lake, Westminster, Rosemead, Scottsdale, Raleigh, etc where there is a general expression of the church, but since "they're not in the flow, they're separate from us". This brings the discussion back to what brings us to assemble? Is it our mutual faith in Jesus Christ as our savior or is it taking the ministry as our corporate expression?

Guileless as doves: "Per Witness Lee, If a local church doesn't want to take his ministry, they are still a local church. Practically and corporately."

Crafty as serpents: "...behind the scenes LSM and DCP employees were actively assisting local saints in taking action against their localities."

It is bib-li-cal!!

[TLFisher]

Crafty as serpents: "...behind the scenes LSM and DCP employees were actively assisting local saints in taking action against their localities."

Even if brother Lee did speak a word the localities don't need to take his ministry to be a local church, some elders don't feel that way. One in particular told me in 1995/96 when I asked about Moses Lake raised in Southern California and not knowing what happened with Washington State localities during the 1980's, I had not idea Moses Lake ceased ties with LSM in 1986.
So I asked the elder, "what about Moses Lake?" (As I had close family friends that came out of Moses Lake.) The elder's response to me was, "they're a rebel church". That statement implies to be a local church, you need to take the Living Stream as your ministry and basis for fellowship if you desire to be in the flow.
Is it possible for LSM affiliated local churches and non-affiliated local churches to have fellowship? Definitely yes if LSM and it's publications or any other ministry is a non-factor. In terms of reading from a text in fellowship, all you need is a Bible. Whether it's NIV, NASB, RCV, etc.

[rayliotta]

Even if brother Lee did speak a word the localities don't need to take his ministry to be a local church, some elders don't feel that way. One in particular told me in 1995/96 when I asked about Moses Lake raised in Southern California and not knowing what happened with Washington State localities during the 1980's, I had not idea Moses Lake ceased ties with LSM in 1986.
So I asked the elder, "what about Moses Lake?" (As I had close family friends that came out of Moses Lake.) The elder's response to me was, "they're a rebel church". That statement implies to be a local church, you need to take the Living Stream as your ministry and basis for fellowship if you desire to be in the flow.
Is it possible for LSM affiliated local churches and non-affiliated local churches to have fellowship? Definitely yes if LSM and it's publications or any other ministry is a non-factor. In terms of reading from a text in fellowship, all you need is a Bible. Whether it's NIV, NASB, RCV, etc.

As I see it, the M.O. of the Recovery can be summed up in three words, Authority and Submission. Once you look at things in this context (don't mean you specifically, Terry, speaking generally here), then you can start to understand the dynamic in the Recovery.

In other words, once you stop trying to fit the "round peg" of Recovery behaviors/attitudes/speaking/etc -- into the "square hole" of all that Biblical stuff you think they surely must care about.

Just speaking from my own experience here...

[ZNPaaneah]

As I see it, the M.O. of the Recovery can be summed up in three words, Authority and Submission. Once you look at things in this context (don't mean you specifically, Terry, speaking generally here), then you can start to understand the dynamic in the Recovery.

In other words, once you stop trying to fit the "round peg" of Recovery behaviors/attitudes/speaking/etc -- into the "square hole" of all that Biblical stuff you think they surely must care about.

Just speaking from my own experience here...

They are the Islamic wing of Christian cults?

[rayliotta]

They are the Islamic wing of Christian cults?

Everything has to be one extreme or the other?

[Unregistered]

I have never heard of Ron Kangas claiming to be God's deputy authority. At one time after brother Lee had passed, it was said the mantle was passed from brother Lee to the Blended brothers.
What I did hear last November was Ron Kangas backtracking on the issue of deputy authority. (The regional conference On the Cross.) The authority lies with God, not Witness Lee, and not the blended brothers. No one can claim such authority. To make such a claim illustrates no such authority.

Nee taught that coworkers were apostles who were in charge of "the work" and had authority to appoint elders etc. Then within "the work" sphere there was a unwritten but firm hierarchy i.e. pecking order among the "apostles".

I would further suggest that the term "apostles' teaching" used in Acts in the view of the LC members = Lee's teaching and maybe the BB.

The critical point of the Reformation was not justification by faith - that was a derivative. The fundamental work of the Reformers was to shift the loci of authority from a person i.e. Pope and his hierarchy to the believer's conscience and the Bible. This position upsets the status quo and little papalesque sects like the LC react in similar manner as the RC did with Luther, etc. i.e. they try to squelch and suppress any dissent that threatens their leadership curia i.e. their supposed interpretative monopoly on the truth.