View Full Version : Apostles
RG and others really believe that WL was today's "Apostle Paul." As such, WL should be promoted and protected at all cost. Whatever is done to promote and protect "the Apostle," covers over all apparent anomalies. So, for example, if reading Christian biographies seems good for the Apostle and his "program," then RG promotes the reading of Christian biographies. If, however, the reading Christian biographies seems to discredit the Apostle and his authority, then RG condemns the reading of Christian biographies as being dangerous for the church.
Thus, in the recovery, they do not evaluate people or practices on their inherent value, but on how much value they are to the ministry. One day you promote the ministry, so they love you. The next day you "voice a concern" about the ministry, and they throw you under the bus. Never forget who is driving the bus!
Good points, Ohio. And this is precisely why they must be wrong. Because if we can be convinced somebody is "the Apostle" then there is no end to the havoc we can wreak in his name, because everything becomes subordinate to that idea, including the well-being of believers. History has shown this again and again.
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.
Good points, Ohio. And this is precisely why they must be wrong. Because if we can be convinced somebody is "the Apostle" then there is no end to the havoc we can wreak in his name, because everything becomes subordinate to that idea, including the well-being of believers. History has shown this again and again.
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.
Based on what are the apostles gone? Eph 4 says the Head "gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers." Are there then no more prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers?
Silvanus and Timothy were apostles. Are there no more?
Silvanus and Timothy were apostles. Are there no more?
Jesus said, "If you want to be first, be the least." If somebody proclaims they are an apostle, or if they allow their minions to prop them up as such, run away.
1 Cor 15, alluding to the resurrection, says that star differs from star in glory.
I give Paul and Timothy and the 12 the benefit of the doubt, because of their position in church history.
But those who claim glory (or authority, or position) here on earth, this side of the judgment seat; I am wary to say the least.
There is probably currently a "Messenger to the church in NYC", for instance. But I seriously doubt it is the elder of the Living Stream Ministry-affiliated "Recovery Church" there. Or any other self-proclaimed apostle.
Jesus said, "If you want to be first, be the least." If somebody proclaims they are an apostle, or if they allow their minions to prop them up as such, run away.
Paul proclaimed he was an Apostle, and there have been millions of Christians who did not run from him. You might want to reconsider your post.
Based on what are the apostles gone? Eph 4 says the Head "gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers." Are there then no more prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers?
Silvanus and Timothy were apostles. Are there no more?
No, there are not, I don't believe.
Apostles can define divine truth, i.e. write Scripture. Revelation says the book is closed. Therefore there are no more apostles of the first century type, which Witness Lee was purported to be.
The issue is not being just a "sent one." 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.
No, there are not.
Apostles can define divine truth, i.e. write Scripture. Revelation says the book is closed. Therefore there are no more apostles of the first century type, which Witness Lee was purported to be.
The issue is not being just a "sent one." 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.
Your theory has holes. You say only apostles can write scripture. Where is that written down? Luke, Mark, Jude, James wrote scripture and they were not apostles. Silvanus, Timothy and Barnabas were apostles, yet not of the "twelve." I don't think "the book is closed" ended the apostles.
Luke was an evangelist, and he wrote scripture. Luke is now gone, as are Mark, Matthew and John. Does that mean there are no more evangelists? What about prophets? Are there no more?
I know your theory makes for a convenient "sell," but the facts do not support it.
Your theory has holes. You say only apostles can write scripture. Where is that written down? Luke, Mark, Jude, James wrote scripture and they were not apostles. Silvanus, Timothy and Barnabas were apostles, yet not of the "twelve." I don't think "the book is closed" ended the apostles.
Luke was an evangelist, and he wrote scripture. Luke is now gone, as are Mark, Matthew and John. Does that mean there are no more evangelists? What about prophets? Are there no more?
I know your theory makes for a convenient "sell," but the facts do not support it.
The general consensus of the church is that apostles of the rank of Peter, Paul and Luke can no longer exist because the ability to write scripture no longer exists. Apostles of that type were special. They had an authority which is no longer given, which is to directly define divine truth. Their words could become scripture. That doesn't mean they necessarily did become scripture just that they could. That authority no longer exists.
Since the canon is closed, no apostle of the type Paul and Peter and Luke were cannot exist now. By definition this is true. That is a big distinction. Lee's band wanted people to believe that Lee was of that rank. But he wasn't. They for all intents and purposes believe his words are as good as scripture BECAUSE they believe he was one of those types of apostles.
Given the confusion that such a belief can and has caused, that is reason enough to reject it, especially since there is no compelling scriptural command to accept it.
At least two types of apostles can possibly exist. Apostles who can write scripture, and apostles who cannot. Since the canon is closed the first type can no longer exist. Therefore Lee could not be the type of apostle Peter and Paul were. This is true by definition.
Lee's band wanted people to believe Lee was right up there with Paul, but he couldn't have been because the ability to write scripture is a huge distinction.
At best Lee could be a bible teacher and a church planter. If you want to call that an "apostle" that's your business. But Paul was much more than that.
The problem with calling someone an apostle is that it borrows and co-opts an authority from the aura of people like Peter and Paul, which may not be appropriate.
What does it mean, anyway, in this day and age, to be an apostle? To be sent? Okay, no problem there. But all of us are sent in some way. To be sent to more than one church? Okay, no big deal there, either.
If it ended with those things there would be no problem. But the fact is the term "apostle" to most Christians carries a extraordinary weight which makes making the claim dangerous. Should all Christians submit to the "apostle?" One would think so.
The term is fuzzy. Evangelists preach the gospel. Prophets speak for God. What do apostles do? Tell everyone else what to do? That's the way LSM would have it, as long as their guy gets to be the apostle. Then he could tell everyone to buy their books.
The general consensus of the church is that apostles of the rank of Peter, Paul and Luke can no longer exist because the ability to write scripture no longer exists. Apostles of that type were special. They had an authority which is no longer given, which is to directly define divine truth. Their words could become scripture. That doesn't mean they necessarily did become scripture just that they could. That authority no longer exists.
Since the canon is closed, no apostle of the type Paul and Peter and Luke were cannot exist now. By definition this is true. That is a big distinction. Lee's band wanted people to believe that Lee was of that rank. But he wasn't. They for all intents and purposes believe his words are as good as scripture BECAUSE they believe he was one of those types of apostles.
Given the confusion that such a belief can and has caused, that is reason enough to reject it, especially since there is no compelling scriptural command to accept it.
This is a distortion of the apostleship. Paul never says that, "the signs of the apostleship are writing scripture." Instead he points to many other descriptors. Your argument here is circular: since apostles wrote scripture, and scripture is written, then the apostleship is also over.
Forget what WL said. That is a red herring.
You have addressed none of my facts. Here is another -- if the initial apostles were supposed to write scripture, then why did only Peter, Matthew and John write? The other nine of the twelve were failures, by your theory. There are more non-apostle writers of the N.T. than there are apostle writers.
There is no "compelling scriptural command" to accept your theory.
The problem with calling someone an apostle is that it borrows and co-opts an authority from the aura of people like Peter and Paul, which may not be appropriate.
What does it mean, anyway, in this day and age, to be an apostle? To be sent?
An apostle was commissioned by the Head of the body. An apostle could be considered an ambassador of Christ. Just to say you are "sent" means very little, and it is a shame to demean the apostleship to some catchy slogan based on the meaning of the Greek word.
Please excuse the multiple posts but stuff keeps popping into my head.
Suppose I tell you that Rick Warren is a really good teacher with some important things to say for this generation and that I think everyone should listen to him.
Okay, now suppose I tell you Rick Warren is an apostle. What have I really added? Basically I have engaged in spiritual arm twisting to try to get you to respect Rick Warren. I have no idea whether he is an apostle or not, and neither does anyone else. Sure he might be "sent," but we all know apostle carries much more meaning that just being sent, even though that's all the word means etymologically. And it's that extra meaning that I'd be trying to leverage if I declared he is an apostle. I'd be trying to give him weight in your eyes so you'll submit to him. But the fact is I have would really not know if I knew what I was talking about when making such claim.
Witness Lee an apostle? Titus Chu? Rick Warren? All these claims are just confusing and confounding. They are unverifiable, unhelpful and potentially damaging.
As time passes I respect mainstream Christianity more and more. There's a reason people in general don't use these terms, and it's a wise one.
An apostle was commissioned by the Head of the body. An apostle could be considered an ambassador of Christ. Just to say you are "sent" means very little, and it is a shame to demean the apostleship to some catchy slogan based on the meaning of the Greek word.
Nonsense. I'm not demeaning the true apostles, just the claim that we have the same thing today.
There is no "compelling scriptural command" to accept your theory.
Okay then don't accept it. Believe someone is an apostle today if you want to for all the good it will do. I just can't see what good it would do.
If you want to call that an "apostle" that's your business. But Paul was much more than that.
Your argument kinds of defeats itself. If a bible teacher and a church planter can be considered an "apostle," then some in the Recovery might fit that description -- apostles of the second type. Sounds like a WL teaching. :p
Then you say that, "Paul was much more than that." Of course, he was. Not even the original twelve, hand-picked by the Lord himself, could match up with Paul. So now you are saying that there was really only one apostle, right?
Okay then don't accept it. Believe someone is an apostle today if you want to for all the good it will do. I just can't see what good it would do.
But that is not the point. It is you who are saying there are no more apostles after the original authors, and the writings of the Bible are completed. I agree the writings of the Bible are completed, but see no reason to believe that in all of church history, after the apostles' time, the Head of the body has stopped "giving gifts to men, and He gave some apostles."
Poster Norm, in one of his earliest posts, said, "to me, WL is an apostle." I know others who say, "TC is an apostle." Brothers in Germany felt, "JS is an apostle." Brothers in Brazil feel, "DYL is an apostle."
The record of the New Testament shows that no Apostle is perfect. Peter blundered a few times, and all church history has learned about them. What is significant concerning the apostles is their calling and commission by the Head of the body. Paul also gave the signs of the apostle in 2 Cor 12.12 as a test to those who claim the apostleship, but are not.
Your argument kinds of defeats itself. If a bible teacher and a church planter can be considered an "apostle," then some in the Recovery might fit that description -- apostles of the second type. Sounds like a WL teaching. :p
Then you say that, "Paul was much more than that." Of course, he was. Not even the original twelve, hand-picked by the Lord himself, could match up with Paul. So now you are saying that there was really only one apostle, right?
No. I'm saying that the possibility of being able to write Scripture places all the apostles before the canon was closed on a higher plain than anyone who might be considered an apostle after the canon was closed. After the canon closed the potential authority of any apostle was decreased.
But that is not the point. It is you who are saying there are no more apostles after the original authors, and the writings of the Bible are completed. I agree the writings of the Bible are completed, but see no reason to believe that in all of church history, after the apostles' time, the Head of the body has stopped "giving gifts to men, and He gave some apostles."
It's not just me who says the age of the apostles is over. It's most Christian theologians. And I did give you a reason--we have no way of objectively deciding who is an apostle (without signs and miracles). Further, contention over who is "the man" causes great problems as we've seen. Excessive loyalty and ideas like "being one with the minstry" spring from this.
Besides, what are the signs of an apostle. Isn't one them being able to work miracles?
"The signs, indeed, of the apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds (2 Corinthians 12:12, YLT)."
Did Nee, Lee, or the others work such apostolic miracles?
Poster Norm, in one of his earliest posts, said, "to me, WL is an apostle." I know others who say, "TC is an apostle." Brothers in Germany felt, "JS is an apostle." Brothers in Brazil feel, "DYL is an apostle."
Sounds mighty subjective. The problem with thinking someone is an apostle is that it carries with it the expectation (almost the demand) that others think it as well. This causes contention. Given that we have no way of confirming apostleship, except the standard of 2 Cor 12:12 (and no one mentioned has lived up to that standard) I feel our considering some today apostles causes more problems than it solves.
It seems you are simply insistent that apostles can exist today so we should believe they do exist. But the latter does not follow from the former.
Please tell me.
How do we recognize apostles? (please consider 2 Cor 12:12)
Name some of the apostles on earth for the last 150 years. Please include some not in the LRC movement.
Who is an apostle today?
Before we can continue, I think we need to define the term "apostle" What does it mean? The word itself means "sent one". Ohio, gave this definition.
An apostle was commissioned by the Head of the body. An apostle could be considered an ambassador of Christ.
This definition is hardly helpful, however. We are all commissioned by the Head of the Body, and we all can be considered ambassadors.
So I ask the question again. What is an apostle? What does he do? I know what set the first century apostles apart. But what about today?
One characteristic of apostles is that they had extraordinary divine authority. Paul could directly correct a church because he was an apostle. I don't think people exist today in the Body of Christ who can walk into a church and assume authority. Paul, prudently, tempered this authority and didn't abuse it. But he did claim to have it.
Does anyone have such authority today?
Isn't it the idea that Lee had such authority which led to so many LRC problems?
countmeworthy
08-25-2011, 08:36 AM
http://www.lsmradio.com/hearing-of-faith/pdf/whatis/Jan04whatis.pdf
They use Bible verses all foot loose and fancy free, like the Jehovah's Witnesses ... how did I ever fall for something like Witness Lee?
Maybe you fell in love w/Witness Lee instead of Jesus, Who was and still is and always will be the WORD of GOD before He became flesh?
you ... are saying there are no more apostles after the original authors, and the writings of the Bible are completed. I agree the writings of the Bible are completed, but see no reason to believe that in all of church history, after the apostles' time, the Head of the body has stopped "giving gifts to men, and He gave some apostles."
The title of this thread is "Combating LC Arguments". This recent set of interchanges between Igzy & Ohio highlights, for me, the peril of internet discussion. The Bible goes blank, and we are left with logic. Igzy's leads one way; Ohio goes another.
Paul said he was an apostle. This was confirmed by the 12, or at least not denied; but who was an apostle after Paul, and John and Peter were gone? The Bible doesn't say. It doesn't say "there will be more" and it doesn't say "there will not be more".
So Igzy and Ohio and the rest of us are left with our logic. I go with Igzy here: the mass of christianity has not recognized the title of apostle since the Bible concluded. Catholics think the pope is, the Mormons think their boss is an apostle, and the LCs think Mssrs Nee & Lee were. But there is no consensus, so it is really moot.
Combating LC arguments comes from shared acceptance (God is; God is good; God loved us and sent His Son; God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day; etc).
Who is or is not an apostle will play into the enemy's hands and create rancor among the troops (we are, believe it or not, The Army of God). So the trinity, and the rapture, and apostleship, and other subjects not clearly stated and open to interpretation might best not be argued, but loosely held.
Which of course impinges on most of my current "theories".... :(
Ah well.
ZNPaaneah
08-25-2011, 09:29 AM
Let me see if I can understand this discussion:
Igzy is saying that "The 12 Apostles" are no longer on the Earth and the Bible is complete. We are no longer writing scripture.
I think everyone agrees with that.
Ohio is saying that God gave gifts to man, and one of those gifts was apostleship, and that these gifts were given to perfect man. I think we can all agree with that.
Igzy is saying that this teaching of Apostleship has caused all kinds of harm throughout the church age, WL is only one example, there are others equally heinous. I think we can all agree with that.
Igzy is also saying that because this teaching is causing trouble therefore it is better to say, as most Christians do, that the age of the Apostles is over and there are no more apostles.
I don't agree with that reasoning no more than the use of a knife to commit a crime is a valid reason to abolish knives.
Igzy is arguing that the definition for apostle is far too vague. This is where I would say that you have to make a distinction between "the" apostles and "an" apostle.
Personally I have seen miracles done, so I certainly don't think that is a valid basis to argue that we don't have apostles anymore.
Igzy also argues that most of Christianity agrees with this view that there are no more apostles. Again, that to me is not a valid reason. I am much more interested in what the Bible says.
Two examples of Apostles that I would propose would be Hudson Taylor and Martin Luther.
I didn't say there were no more miracles. I said that 2 Cor 12:12 seems to suggest miracles accompany genuine apostleship. And as far as I know they did not accompany any of the names being tossed around here.
Again, let's define what an apostle is. What does he (or she?) do?
Also, please tell me the advantage to the church of designating someone an apostle. I've heard opinions of who might be an apostle, but nothing definitive. How do these opinions help anyone? What's the point, other than asserting an opinion about someone. I mean if a Christian teacher or leader lends guidance to the church at large, or helps spread the kingdom in a major way, are we required to call them apostles? If not why do it, give that the assessment is largely subjective (outside of signs and miracles.)
The practical issue is not being able to look back in time and say "that person was an apostle." This issue is how to identify current apostles. That's where the problem lies.
countmeworthy
08-25-2011, 10:17 AM
The title of this thread is "Combating LC Arguments". who was an apostle after Paul, and John and Peter were gone? The Bible doesn't say. It doesn't say "there will be more" and it doesn't say "there will not be more".
The Bible may not say WHO were the apostles after the original 12 departed but it does say in Ephesians 4 there would be SOME apostles, etc...
However, I think the church as a religious institution twisted the meaning of Ephesians 4:10-12.
The 'apostles' I have been acquainted with all have an agenda. I am personally acquainted with one who came to my neck of my woods from S Africa around 2003/4. I see soo much parellelism between he & Lee but savier & more cunning than Lee. He has "planted" over 200 churches mostly in S Africa. The 'pastors' teach exactly what he teaches and of course they tithe at least 10 percent of their 'income' from the congregants to the ministry of the 'apostle'. If I saw pureness and complete Truth in what he teaches, I would not have a problem. But he like many out there, twist the Word of God to suit their 'business' needs.
So Igzy and Ohio and the rest of us are left with our logic.
Aww. But Aaron, I stand firm by Faith on 1 Corinthinians 2:16:
For who has known or understood the Mind (the Counsels and Purposes) of the Lord so as to guide and instruct Him and give Him knowledge? But we have the mind of Christ (the Messiah) and do hold the thoughts of His heart. Let not your heart be troubled by Igzy or Ohio's thoughts. We are not all on the same page.
I go with Igzy here: the mass of christianity has not recognized the title of apostle since the Bible concluded.
Among the 'charasmatics' or 'Word of Faith' crowd, there are lots of 'apostles'. Lots!! And most of them are :thumbsdown:
Catholics think the pope is, the Mormons think their boss is an apostle, and the LCs think Mssrs Nee & Lee were. But there is no consensus, so it is really moot. It's not as moot for me as it might be for you because some of the threads on this forum have helped me put man's 'church' into perspective. Most 'Christians' have turned the Word of God into a business venture. People pay $$$ to become 'ordained pastors'. People pay $$$ to go to 'bible college'. If you don't pay your 'tithes & offerings', "YOU" are stealing from God!!!! Bad boy/Bad girl!!! "Bring your friends to church!!" I hear over & over. Why? So they can open up their wallets ??? Maybe it's not like that everywhere but it sure is true in the bible belt.
Much of what happened in the LC under Lee's leadership has & continues to happen elsewhere in Christianity. The difference I have noticed is when I was in the LC, following the message, the congregants were given the opportunity to build up the message. At home gatherings, everyone discussed Lee's messages. And when we quoted a scripture or passage, it was as Lee saw it.
In 'degraded' Christianity, the congregants are mute following a sermon. (Lee gave messages, never 'sermons'. :rollingeyes2:)
That said, I am not an 'island'. I do listen and respect preachers who teach the Word of God because they KNOW Him. I can listen to 2 preachers teach or preach virtually the same thing and one will be anointed, that is be in the Presence of God strongly and the other not. This also does not mean the 'anointed' preacher/teacher is always under the anointing when he/she teaches or preaches.
So the trinity, and the rapture, and apostleship, and other subjects not clearly stated and open to interpretation might best not be argued, but loosely held. Maybe so Aaron but we should search the scriptures prayerfully to find the answers. God promises He will reveal His Secrets to us and give us understanding ! So search the scriptures ! Ask the Lord for Wisdom & Understanding! He'll give them to you !! Then you can share w/others what the Lord revealed to you and encourage them in the Faith!
Jeremiah 33:2-3
2 “This is what the Lord says—the Lord who made the earth, who formed and established it, whose name is the Lord: 3 Ask me and I will tell you remarkable secrets you do not know about things to come.
Luke 8:9-11
His disciples asked Him what this parable meant. 10 He replied, “You are permitted to understand the secrets[a] of the Kingdom of God. But I use parables to teach the others so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled:
‘When they look, they won’t really see.
When they hear, they won’t understand.’
11 “This is the meaning of the parable: The Seed is God’s word.
One more:
1 Corinthians 2:10
It was to us that God revealed these things by His Spirit. For His Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets.
CMW
ZNPaaneah
08-25-2011, 10:29 AM
The practical issue is not being able to look back in time and say "that person was an apostle." This issue is how to identify current apostles. That's where the problem lies.
How do you know someone has the gift of evangelism? How do you know someone is a gifted shepherd or teacher? You know them by their fruits.
ZNPaaneah
08-25-2011, 10:33 AM
I didn't say there were no more miracles. I said that 2 Cor 12:12 seems to suggest miracles accompany genuine apostleship. And as far as I know they did not accompany any of the names being tossed around here.
Again, let's define what an apostle is. What does he (or she?) do?
Also, please tell me the advantage to the church of designating someone an apostle. I've heard opinions of who might be an apostle, but nothing definitive. How do these opinions help anyone? What's the point, other than asserting an opinion about someone. I mean if a Christian teacher or leader lends guidance to the church at large, or helps spread the kingdom in a major way, are we required to call them apostles? If not why do it, give that the assessment is largely subjective (outside of signs and miracles.)
I do not see the point in designating anyone anything. Is it helpful to say Billie Graham was an evangelist? Why isn't servant of God sufficient? Though once you agree he was a gifted evangelist you would then look at his work differently. Prior to that you might decide that his approach to the gospel is not for you, but once you decide he was a gift given to the body to perfect the saints you might reevaluate his ministry with the hope of learning and imitating him.
But, I do see a very pronounced danger in teachings that are not based on the word of God but rather are based on the fact that this teaching has been abused or that we have come to a general consensus on this.
Rather I would say that if experience has shown you that a teaching can be abused, then as a mature Christian you are obligated to show much more prudence and forethought in discussing it. Once you realize a teaching can be used to damage saints, then you are no longer speaking the truth in love if you handle this teaching carelessly. This is why we keep knives away from small children.
How do you know someone has the gift of evangelism? How do you know someone is a gifted shepherd or teacher? You know them by their fruits.
Okay, what are the fruits of apostleship?
Also, what's the difference between an apostle and a missionary?
So far we've had two major topics develop in this thread - Pray-Reading and now "Apostles". I think both topics are worth their own thread. Would anybody have any objection to splitting off these two into two different threads?
That would be helpful.
But, I do see a very pronounced danger in teachings that are not based on the word of God but rather are based on the fact that this teaching has been abused or that we have come to a general consensus on this.
It's not just based on that. It's based on the fact that the first century apostles were special in several ways.
1. They were either with the Lord personally or were the associate of someone who was. (Paul said he had seen the Lord Jesus).
2. They each had the potential of establishing the faith. In fact the primary role of an apostle was to establish the faith.
No one can qualify for 1, and the faith has been established (Jude 3). Therefore apostles of that type are no longer possible.
Again let me reiterate. We are not operating with a solid definition of apostle. This is part of our reason for disagreement.
Controversial Bible Issues
www.BibleIssues.org
ARE THERE STILL APOSTLES TODAY?
By Denver Cheddie
There are people today who claim to be apostles and prophets and actually add these titles to their names. They claim that the 5 fold ministry has been restored. Does the Bible teach that apostles and prophets are to be expected today or were they specifically for the early church? If they were for the early church only, then what do we conclude of the above mentioned persons? Misguided souls or seducers?
Definition
The word apostle means ambassador, someone who was sent on behalf of
another for a specific purpose. The one sent usually carried the full authority
of the sender. Those sent by God with His message were apostles.
Description
The word apostle is used in different ways in the NT. Sometimes it refers to a special group of people who held the office of the apostle (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4: 11). An examination of the Bible reveals a clear distinctness with the original 12, and later, Matthias (Acts 1:26). They were granted special rewards in the New Jerusalem (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 21:14) that no one else could attain. Clearly these 12 apostles were unique. But there were also other apostles who were commissioned by Christ, Paul being the most noteworthy.
In 1 Cor. 15:7, 9 Paul indicates that one of the criteria for being an apostle was to have seen Jesus and been personally commissioned by Him. This was true of the 12 and also Paul. I refer to these as the major apostles.
More broadly, those who worked with these major apostles were also called (minor) apostles. e.g. Barnabas (1 Cor. 9:6).
Function
Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone
Contrary to popular opinion the apostles’ job was not to plant churches. This fell under their jurisdiction but was not their primary role. Their main function was to establish the faith. Jesus Christ died once and for all to become the chief cornerstone of the Christian faith (Eph. 2:20). The purpose of the apostles was to establish the faith and build a doctrinal foundation for which the church would be based. They were specially commissioned by God to do this. In John 14:26; 16:12-14, Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would come and reveal to them what they needed to know for this very purpose. In an indirect sense these verses apply to all of us, in that the Holy Spirit teaches us how to apply God’s Word (already written) and brings it to our remembrance. But these words were directly spoken to the apostles who physically heard Jesus. This promise was fulfilled when the apostles wrote what Jesus said and what was yet to be said (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:10, 12). Thus it was important for them to have physically seen Him. Later on Paul was commissioned as an apostle to the Gentiles in the same way Peter was apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2:7).
Every book in the NT was written by an apostle or a close associate of the apostles. To state it loosely, their primary work was to give us the NT writings. Jesus gave us the New Testament (covenant) through His blood, the apostles gave us the New Testament doctrine through their writings and teachings. This is the meaning of Eph. 2:20. Once that foundation has already been laid (Jude 3), it is time to build on it. The foundation does not have to be laid again, anymore than Christ has to die again. Therefore there is no need for apostles today. Now it is time for pastors, evangelists and teachers to build. 1 Cor. 3:5-10 illustrate the difference between an apostle and a teacher. Paul laid the foundation, Apollos built on it.
Thus in the primary sense there are no more apostles. However people who establish churches, heads of denominations etc. may call themselves apostles, they just cannot claim to be infallibly sent by God to bring new revelation to the body of Christ, as were the major apostles of the Bible. Paul’s writings were infallible (1 Cor. 2:13; 14:37; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16 cf. 2 Pet 3:15, 16 where Peter placed Paul’s writing on the same level as the Old Testament).
Igzy is also saying that because this teaching is causing trouble therefore it is better to say, as most Christians do, that the age of the Apostles is over and there are no more apostles.
I don't agree with that reasoning no more than the use of a knife to commit a crime is a valid reason to abolish knives..
But in a subsequent post you say "We should keep knives out of the hands of children."
I have in the past advocated keeping people away from Paul's writings until they have read the 4 Gospels a few times. Like a thousand or two.
Tongue in cheek, of course; but there is a lot of harm done by people who get all fired up over organizing the church and forget to "love your neighbor". They end up with a biblical container and no God. Just a lot of arguing christians with sharp knives.
Igzy also argues that most of Christianity agrees with this view that there are no more apostles. Again, that to me is not a valid reason. I am much more interested in what the Bible says...
My point was that the Bible doesn't say. Paul said God gave some as apostles. Paul didn't indicate that this was to continue, unbroken, in perpetuity until the Lord's return. Nor did he indicate that at some point it would cease.
But history seems to have shown that it ceased, save for "the desposyni" and the RCC and the Mormons and the Living Stream Ministry crowd and others who all seem to share control issues.
Two examples of Apostles that I would propose would be Hudson Taylor and Martin Luther.
Taylor, like Moody and Graham, seems more like and evangelist.
Luther, along with Wesley, formed large religious organizations and so might be seen (in retrospect) as apostolic. Did they or their conemporaries ever claim such? Or are several centuries of history needed for determination?
Another point against 'apostles today'. We lack perspective. Anyone can claim, but the lens of history is not clear to us. So the wanna-be's trumpet.
we should search the scriptures prayerfully to find the answers. God promises He will reveal His Secrets to us and give us understanding ! So search the scriptures ! Ask the Lord for Wisdom & Understanding! He'll give them to you !!
CMW
I get answers; I get understanding. But because my answers are not shared by all I don't hold them as objective truth. I don't turn my answers and understandings into points of division and/or contention.
RollingStone
08-25-2011, 01:19 PM
So I ask the question again. What is an apostle? What does he do? I know what set the first century apostles apart. But what about today?[/quote]
I used to be confused as to who a "saint" was before the LC.
The RCC has some high standards for sainthood that I think have affected the Protestant church. It took a brother who showed me the context of where the word saint was used in the Epistles that I came to believe that all the believers were saints as they had Christ in them not because of what they did or accomplished.
While being confused about what a saint was I had a view that the positions of apostles, prophets, teachers, works of powers, then gifts of healing, helps, administration, various kinds of tongues. as being things you do and not neccessarily a title. There we had lots of people speaking in tongues, the pastor was really an administrator, lots of practical helps (was a bunch of brothers who could fix a chimney or install a toilet in your house), I have witnessed healings and a lot of attempts at healing, lots of teachings about everything, the prophets was looking back sometimes like sooothsaying or predicting the future as oppose to just speaking the word. (Interesting is they allegorized the word trumpet as a prophet instead of publication) and apostles I met some that claimed that title and they went around helping with new churches. I am thinking apostles may not have that title but function with the start of churches as we can see churches everywhere. We do see a discription also of false apostles those who call themselves apostles and are not. Having said that I never bought into the "ministry of the age" position.
Please tell me.
How do we recognize apostles? (please consider 2 Cor 12:12)
Name some of the apostles on earth for the last 150 years. Please include some not in the LRC movement.
Who is an apostle today?
Predictable ploy. Can't answer questions so you throw some back at me. :rolleyes:
Wish I had more time to talk. Later ...
ZNPaaneah
08-25-2011, 01:39 PM
My point was that the Bible doesn't say. Paul said God gave some as apostles. Paul didn't indicate that this was to continue, unbroken, in perpetuity until the Lord's return. Nor did he indicate that at some point it would cease.
But history seems to have shown that it ceased, save for "the desposyni" and the RCC and the Mormons and the Living Stream Ministry crowd and others who all seem to share control issues.
Taylor, like Moody and Graham, seems more like and evangelist.
Luther, along with Wesley, formed large religious organizations and so might be seen (in retrospect) as apostolic. Did they or their conemporaries ever claim such? Or are several centuries of history needed for determination?
Another point against 'apostles today'. We lack perspective. Anyone can claim, but the lens of history is not clear to us. So the wanna-be's trumpet.
I knew a brother who, to those that knew him, would unequivocally be considered a gifted evangelist. I think there could be no dispute that he was a gift given to the body. That said, he never was famous, never held large tent rallies, never really did much more than preach the gospel every day. Likewise, although I don't know their names, I am aware that in history as well as today, there are brothers that tirelessly raise up christian congregations. Now their might not be any comparison with an Apostle Paul as far as Biblical revelation and insight into the word. They may not be famous, they may not really appear to be much of anything. But no doubt, those that know them would realize they are gifts to the body. Not exactly evangelists, not exactly shepherds and teachers. So, what are they? Certainly not one of "the" apostles. But I think it is fair to describe their gift as "apostolic". Just like Jesus told Peter "If I want him to abide until I return, what is that to you". The Lord has different callings for different saints, what is that to us.
ZNPaaneah
08-25-2011, 01:48 PM
So I ask the question again. What is an apostle? What does he do? I know what set the first century apostles apart. But what about today?
I used to be confused as to who a "saint" was before the LC.
The RCC has some high standards for sainthood that I think have affected the Protestant church. It took a brother who showed me the context of where the word saint was used in the Epistles that I came to believe that all the believers were saints as they had Christ in them not because of what they did or accomplished.
While being confused about what a saint was I had a view that the positions of apostles, prophets, teachers, works of powers, then gifts of healing, helps, administration, various kinds of tongues. as being things you do and not neccessarily a title. There we had lots of people speaking in tongues, the pastor was really an administrator, lots of practical helps (was a bunch of brothers who could fix a chimney or install a toilet in your house), I have witnessed healings and a lot of attempts at healing, lots of teachings about everything, the prophets was looking back sometimes like sooothsaying or predicting the future as oppose to just speaking the word. (Interesting is they allegorized the word trumpet as a prophet instead of publication) and apostles I met some that claimed that title and they went around helping with new churches. I am thinking apostles may not have that title but function with the start of churches as we can see churches everywhere. We do see a discription also of false apostles those who call themselves apostles and are not. Having said that I never bought into the "ministry of the age" position.
Yes, I too was once clear. It was clear what the ground of the church is, it was clear that I was a saint, it was clear that God wanted me to prophesy, and that if I "was sent" that I was by definition an apostle. Now Igzy's got me all confused! Why would you do that!? First the RCC defined Apostle, then WL defined Apostle, and now Igzy is giving us a definition.
Perhaps we are too concerned with titles and not concerned enough with the commission the Lord has given us. (PS I think the quotes on RollingStones post were mangled, the first two lines may have been quoted from another post).
The practical issue is not being able to look back in time and say "that person was an apostle." This issue is how to identify current apostles. That's where the problem lies.
They had the exact same problem in the first century, so obviously the church did not consider only the Twelve plus Paul to be Apostles. Paul's second epistle to Corinth (actually his third) addresses the problems created by some who called themselves apostles, but were not. If there were no more apostles, why didn't Paul tell us so?
The Lord praised Ephesus (Rev 2.2) when they tried those who claimed to be apostles. If the age of Apostles was over, why didn't John, the final writer of the Bible, tell us so? What were the tests that Ephesus applied to these "apostles" when the church tried them?
Okay, what are the fruits of apostleship?
Also, what's the difference between an apostle and a missionary?
Not saying every missionary is an apostle, but it would be extremely hard to differentiate the life and fruits of some missionaries from the earliest apostles, and since the Bible does not use the words "mission or missionary," I believe they avoided the "apostle-problem" by using an alternate name.
I am thinking apostles may not have that title but function ...
We will see in "that day" who has titles and who has functions. That is why I am not really interested in titles. Only the ones that pass the Bema are real.
So try to function, according to your strengths, and your opportunities, and let the Master (Gk kurios) deal with appelations. Peter was named by Jesus. He didn't get to pick his own name.
I know, I know: Saul became Paul, and "Watchman" Nee and "Witness" Lee were 'raised up', but really I don't see compelling precedents there, nor does history seem to bear that out.
Instead I see titles becoming bones of contention. Not worth it. Just function. Let God sort things out. Jesus didn't give us "Roberts Rules of Order". He just said "love one another".
I am aware that in history as well as today, there are brothers that tirelessly raise up christian congregations. ..... Not exactly evangelists, not exactly shepherds and teachers. So, what are they? Certainly not one of "the" apostles. But I think it is fair to describe their gift as "apostolic". Just like Jesus told Peter "If I want him to abide until I return, what is that to you". The Lord has different callings for different saints, what is that to us.
Exactly. Unless you think your particular gift is to wrangle with others over titles, who cares, really? Just function as best you can in your circumstances.
Jesus said, "If you get invited to a feast, take the least seat. Then, if the Master of the feast calls you higher, you can go." Lee and his spiritual progeny seem to have taught this, but I don't think they practiced it. It was too tempting to be a "responsible brother" or a "blended brother" or a "laboring one" or a "co-worker" under, ahem, "the apostle". Nah, it was just too juicy to pass up. Besides, without titles, everything would collapse into chaos. Right?
Like the Israelites, baying to God, "We wanna king!! We wanna king!! Why can't we be like the nations and have a king!?!"
We will see in "that day" who has titles and who has functions. That is why I am not really interested in titles. Only the ones that pass the Bema are real.
Exactly. Unless you think your particular gift is to wrangle with others over titles, who cares, really? Just function as best you can in your circumstances.
You are making many good points, but the Bible does address the matter of titles in many occasions. Paul said he was an apostle on many occasions, and then he appointed elders in all the churches.
aron, if your points were valid, not to say I don't like them, then why didn't the Bible end just with the gospels? We would be left with "love God and love your neighbor," and we would be delivered from this age-old discussion about who is an apostle. Wouldn't it be so good if we were all just brothers and sisters, just like in the gospels?
awareness
08-25-2011, 05:56 PM
Wouldn't it be so good if we were all just brothers and sisters, just like in the gospels?Yeah, thanks Paul. When Watchman Nee discovered that Christians lie, that goes all the way back to the earliest writer of NT scriptures.
aron, if your points were valid ... then why didn't the Bible end just with the gospels? We would be left with "love God and love your neighbor," and we would be delivered from this age-old discussion about who is an apostle.
The Bible is what it is, epistles and all. Just read the 4 gospels 15 times for every epistle (especially if you are a "NEW ONE")
The Bible is what it is, epistles and all.
Also worth mentioning is that, though the Bible continues past the gospels and into the Acts and epistles of Paul et al, it keeps going further. After the pastoral epistles is Revelation: opening with "writings to the seven churches" (Rev 1:4,11) which are, by and large, neither salutatory nor sanguine.
(And the LSM footnote that all the local churches need to be "absolutely identical", with the problems in Rev 2 & 3 arising from "differences" is a joke. If God wanted absolute identicality He would have built an assembly line of robots. Instead, God planted a farm [1 Cor 3]).
Jesus didn't use elders or apostles in Revelation 1. His right hand contained seven stars, seven messengers. Each star was capable of delivering Jesus' words to the assembly of believers in that city/region (Rev 1:20).
So yes, Paul does talk about the church having apostles. But don't fall into the trap of finding a verse which aligns with your comfort zone and settling down there. Keep going. Keep pressing on, into the land of crumbling concepts. The Shepherd and the Comforter will meet you there, and will guide you home to the Father.
Predictable ploy. Can't answer questions so you throw some back at me. :rolleyes:
Wish I had more time to talk. Later ...
Ohio I'm not "ploying" with you, okay? I'm just having a discussion. Show me a little more respect, okay, and please stop being rude. I thought you and I were friends.
What questions do you want me to answer? The reasons I skipped some was because I felt they missed the point I was making. I tried to clarify that point, but let me spell it out simply below, and then fire your questions if you still have them.
1. Apostles of the first century type cannot exist today because those established the faith and faith is already established.
2. Apostles can exist today (missionaries, church planters, major visionaries), but not of the rank of the first century.
3. We need to be careful when we designate someone an "apostle" and not by title association endow them with the same authority of the first century apostles, that is, give them some grey area to further establish the faith (read "redefine) and/or command too much authority in controlling churches, as this is the error of Lee and the LRC.
Does that make sense? Thoughts? Where am I going wrong?
ZNPaaneah
08-26-2011, 09:55 AM
I could be mistaken but I think that what Ohio is referring to as "Apostles" today, those that don't use this term refer to as "Missionaries". Now I understand the desire to distinguish between "the apostles" by using a different term even if you are referring to essentially the same gift. I also feel that WL's distinguishing between them with "the" and "a" is going to create confusion and misunderstanding. Also, because of the damage done by false "apostles" and false "Christs" I think I actually prefer the term missionary. Personally on my resume and in job interviews I always referred to my time in Taiwan as being a missionary.
On the other hand, I think that someone as knowledgeable as Igzy, not just of the NT but also of the teachings in the LRC should be prudent in discussing this issue. After reading all of the posts from both sides all of Igzy's arguments seemed reasonable arguments for why Christians would use a term like missionary instead of apostle. None of them seemed like scriptural evidence that the NT presents two classes of apostles. I think had an extra sentence or two been used in the initial post it could have avoided a long and contentious thread.
Now I hope that all reading this post will exercise Christian charity to not actually look at my posts and scream hypocrite. I am well aware that this is advice I should follow.
I could be mistaken but I think that what Ohio is referring to as "Apostles" today, those that don't use this term refer to as "Missionaries". Now I understand the desire to distinguish between "the apostles" by using a different term even if you are referring to essentially the same gift. I also feel that WL's distinguishing between them with "the" and "a" is going to create confusion and misunderstanding. Also, because of the damage done by false "apostles" and false "Christs" I think I actually prefer the term missionary. Personally on my resume and in job interviews I always referred to my time in Taiwan as being a missionary.
On the other hand, I think that someone as knowledgeable as Igzy, not just of the NT but also of the teachings in the LRC should be prudent in discussing this issue. After reading all of the posts from both sides all of Igzy's arguments seemed reasonable arguments for why Christians would use a term like missionary instead of apostle. None of them seemed like scriptural evidence that the NT presents two classes of apostles. I think had an extra sentence or two been used in the initial post it could have avoided a long and contentious thread.
Now I hope that all reading this post will exercise Christian charity to not actually look at my posts and scream hypocrite. I am well aware that this is advice I should follow.
Thanks, Z.
I believe the apostles of the 1st century are of different rank than any who might be apostles today because of the reasons I gave (no longer being able to establish the faith). I believe there is some scriptural logic to that conclusion. But I realize there is no direct scriptural evidence for two classes of apostles.
I think throwing the word apostle around WL led to huge problems, in part because we associated the word with people like Paul and Peter and James and John. We figured if Lee was an apostle he could have/might have/did have the same kind of authority.
Do we believe current day apostles have the same kind of authority as Peter and Paul and James and John? I know I don't, but maybe some of you do.
ZNPaaneah
08-26-2011, 02:30 PM
Thanks, Z.
I believe the apostles of the 1st century are of different rank than any who might be apostles today because of the reasons I gave (no longer being able to establish the faith). I believe there is some scriptural logic to that conclusion. But I realize there is no direct scriptural evidence for two classes of apostles.
I think throwing the word apostle around WL led to huge problems, in part because we associated the word with people like Paul and Peter and James and John. We figured if Lee was an apostle he could have/might have/did have the same kind of authority.
Do we believe current day apostles have the same kind of authority as Peter and Paul and James and John? I know I don't, but maybe some of you do.
No I don't, but then I don't believe Paul had that kind of authority. I think that because Paul was one with the Lord the Lord was able to work through him and release the word. I think over the many years looking back Christians were able to realize that what Paul wrote was scripture in the same way we also can look back a few hundred years on different saints. I don't believe Paul ever had that authority, nor do I think in his day he was treated all that different from other "apostles" and wannabes.
I think any authority they had came through faith. Peter didn't heal anyone, he had faith that the Lord would heal them. According to Peter we all have like precious faith.
rayliotta
08-26-2011, 03:16 PM
I could be mistaken but I think that what Ohio is referring to as "Apostles" today, those that don't use this term refer to as "Missionaries". Now I understand the desire to distinguish between "the apostles" by using a different term even if you are referring to essentially the same gift. I also feel that WL's distinguishing between them with "the" and "a" is going to create confusion and misunderstanding. Also, because of the damage done by false "apostles" and false "Christs" I think I actually prefer the term missionary. Personally on my resume and in job interviews I always referred to my time in Taiwan as being a missionary.
I really don't mean to nitpick, but it's really not a "misunderstanding" at all. Nobody forgot that "The Apostle" means something very different from "An Apostle". They know what they're saying.
Maybe this is what Igzy and Ohio are really disagreeing about? Fist-century Paul called himself "An Apostle", where did he ever call himself "The Apostle"?
ZNPaaneah
08-26-2011, 05:45 PM
I really don't mean to nitpick, but it's really not a "misunderstanding" at all. Nobody forgot that "The Apostle" means something very different from "An Apostle". They know what they're saying.
Maybe this is what Igzy and Ohio are really disagreeing about? Fist-century Paul called himself "An Apostle", where did he ever call himself "The Apostle"?
Thanks for clearing that up for me. BTW can you give me the quote where WL called himself "The Apostle". Thanks.
Ohio I'm not "ploying" with you, okay? I'm just having a discussion. Show me a little more respect, okay, and please stop being rude. I thought you and I were friends.
Igzy, I'm surprised you said that. After thinking back over some of your past "debates" with SI, SC, and others (recently Ryan?), including myself at times, I eventually came to the conclusion that sometimes you place "winning" over friendships.
Hopefully I am wrong. Perhaps it is not your goal, but it does seem that way at times to me.
But, back to our discussion about "apostles." Perhaps the difficulty we have faced is that you are viewing the matter of apostles in context of WL and the LC, while I am pursuing questions I have had based on the Bible and church history, independent of LRC teaching and practice. You are justified, of course, since this a WL/LC forum!
Whether you have considered it or not, as our discussion progressed, I knew the stage would be reached when you would then defend your position by launching a barrage of questions back at me. That's why I posted, "predictable ploy." I never intended to be rude. Brief and to the point, perhaps, but not rude. I tried to respond to you in kind. When you said "Please tell me," it escalated a casual discussion into something more serious.
The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?
The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?
Because the Bible does not say that there are more apostles.
The Bible says there were apostles (1 Cor 12, Eph 4). But it doesn't say there were to be more (i.e. continuing unabated after Paul et al) apostles.
You seem to think that it states (or infers) that somewhere. I don't recall seeing that. Nor does christian history (the record of interpretation & application) seem to bear out the "more apostles" view, except with what might be charitably called "fringe" groups.
1. Apostles of the first century type cannot exist today because those established the faith and faith is already established.
2. Apostles can exist today (missionaries, church planters, major visionaries), but not of the rank of the first century.
3. We need to be careful when we designate someone an "apostle" and not by title association endow them with the same authority of the first century apostles, that is, give them some grey area to further establish the faith (read "redefine) and/or command too much authority in controlling churches, as this is the error of Lee and the LRC.
Does that make sense? Thoughts? Where am I going wrong?
Good points. Let me add what little I know.
1. It seems to me that apostles like the "Twelve plus Paul" (for convenience say "13") cannot exist today because only these ones were with the Lord on earth, specifically chosen by Him, trained by Him, commissioned by Him, and became eyewitnesses of His death and resurrection.
2. Whether they were of the "13" or not, did not determine whether they would write scripture or not. The Spirit was not bound by the "13" as to who would write scripture. Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul were of the "13," but Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not of the "13." So one half of the N.T. writers were not of the "13."
3. It seems to me that the Spirit ended the canon of the N.T. with John's Revelation, not because he was the last surviving of the "13," but because it was the eternal plan of God.
4. Besides the "13," the Bible lists other apostles such as Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, and Silas. No one is saying that these ones match the "13" in stature or calling. Also, the Bible never indicates that these ones should not be considered as apostles.
5. The Bible never says that there are no more apostles, rather that "He gives gifts to man," and He continues to "give gifts to man." I believe that church history is filled with the accounts of these many "gifts."
6. Today the Head still gives "gifts to men ... some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers." What identifies them is their calling and their mission, not their ability to write scripture. Actually, the apostleship and the writing of scripture seem no where dependent on one another, as non-apostles wrote some scripture, and some of the "13" wrote nothing of scripture.
7. The only ones in the N.T. who could boldly claim their apostleship were the "13." None of the 1st century apostles like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, or Silas claimed their apostleship. It was recorded as such, yet they were not "titled" as such. I believe the same should be true today. When someone calls him- (or her-) self an "apostle," probably he (or she) is not, yet many others are indeed apostles, given as gifts to men by the Head.
Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?
rayliotta
08-27-2011, 02:16 AM
Thanks for clearing that up for me. BTW can you give me the quote where WL called himself "The Apostle". Thanks.
I was going to ask you -- after all, you did attribute it to him?
rayliotta
08-27-2011, 02:18 AM
Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?
13 is a heresy...
ZNPaaneah
08-27-2011, 03:11 AM
I was going to ask you -- after all, you did attribute it to him?
No, my only recollection was of him rebuking anyone who said that, but that was in the early 80s
rayliotta
08-27-2011, 03:29 AM
No, my only recollection was of him rebuking anyone who said that, but that was in the early 80s
I was referring to your statement,
I also feel that WL's distinguishing between them with "the" and "a" is going to create confusion and misunderstanding.
P.S. All stocked up on bottled water?
awareness
08-27-2011, 07:29 AM
No, my only recollection was of him rebuking anyone who said that, but that was in the early 80sMy whole issue that ended up with Mel Porter giving me an ultimatum was over rejecting that Witness Lee was the apostle on the earth.
It was called "The Flow of Oneness." Here's how it went : Christ is on his throne. From the throne comes the river of life, carrying the authority of the throne. The river of life flows to "the apostle of God on the earth" - Witness Lee. Then it flows from the apostle of God to the elders in each locality, and then to the saints in each locality. Psalms 133 was used to depict it.
I outright rejected it. My contention was that Witness Lee wasn't the apostle of God on the earth. That got me the boot.
ZNPaaneah
08-27-2011, 12:50 PM
P.S. All stocked up on bottled water?
Sort of. I was planning to go visit my Mom but the city called all city employees looking for people to man the evacuation ctrs. I will say this, NYC is very well prepared for what is coming. Regardless of what happens this will not be a repeat of Katrina.
ZNPaaneah
08-27-2011, 12:53 PM
My whole issue that ended up with Mel Porter giving me an ultimatum was over rejecting that Witness Lee was the apostle on the earth.
It was called "The Flow of Oneness." Here's how it went : Christ is on his throne. From the throne comes the river of life, carrying the authority of the throne. The river of life flows to "the apostle of God on the earth" - Witness Lee. Then it flows from the apostle of God to the elders in each locality, and then to the saints in each locality. Psalms 133 was used to depict it.
I outright rejected it. My contention was that Witness Lee wasn't the apostle of God on the earth. That got me the boot.
That fits with my recollection. RG and others promoted to high heaven that WL was "the apostle" and then in messages from WL you would get this pathetic rebuke by WL telling them to stop when you know that if WL really wanted them to stop it would have stopped. It wasn't merely a teaching of fact but of obedience, it was all about "being one" with the MOTA.
rayliotta
08-27-2011, 03:15 PM
Sort of. I was planning to go visit my Mom but the city called all city employees looking for people to man the evacuation ctrs. I will say this, NYC is very well prepared for what is coming. Regardless of what happens this will not be a repeat of Katrina.
So does that mean you're coming to us from there?
rayliotta
08-27-2011, 03:20 PM
That fits with my recollection. RG and others promoted to high heaven that WL was "the apostle" and then in messages from WL you would get this pathetic rebuke by WL telling them to stop when you know that if WL really wanted them to stop it would have stopped. It wasn't merely a teaching of fact but of obedience, it was all about "being one" with the MOTA.
I think this is the same reaction many of us had to RG's pray-reading booklet. It's hard to take it seriously, because if it really meant anything to the leadership, the practice would have changed.
Overnight, no. But in a year, or two, or 30?
Good points. Let me add what little I know.
1. It seems to me that apostles like the "Twelve plus Paul" (for convenience say "13") cannot exist today because only these ones were with the Lord on earth, specifically chosen by Him, trained by Him, commissioned by Him, and became eyewitnesses of His death and resurrection.
2. Whether they were of the "13" or not, did not determine whether they would write scripture or not. The Spirit was not bound by the "13" as to who would write scripture. Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul were of the "13," but Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not of the "13." So one half of the N.T. writers were not of the "13."
Everyone that wrote Scripture however seemed to be closely associated with the apostles or Jesus. Luke with Paul; Mark with Peter; Jude, the brother of James, who was the brother of Jesus. There is no book "out of the blue." Jude is the only book that even comes close being that kind. Though we are not certain of the writer of Hebrews.
3. It seems to me that the Spirit ended the canon of the N.T. with John's Revelation, not because he was the last surviving of the "13," but because it was the eternal plan of God.
There may be only correlation, no causation, but still the pattern holds. Only the 13 or someone directly associated with them or Jesus wrote scripture.
4. Besides the "13," the Bible lists other apostles such as Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, and Silas. No one is saying that these ones match the "13" in stature or calling. Also, the Bible never indicates that these ones should not be considered as apostles.
I'm curious where these are noted as apostles. I considered them co-workers. But not necessarily apostles themselves.
5. The Bible never says that there are no more apostles, rather that "He gives gifts to man," and He continues to "give gifts to man." I believe that church history is filled with the accounts of these many "gifts."
6. Today the Head still gives "gifts to men ... some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers." What identifies them is their calling and their mission, not their ability to write scripture. Actually, the apostleship and the writing of scripture seem no where dependent on one another, as non-apostles wrote some scripture, and some of the "13" wrote nothing of scripture.
7. The only ones in the N.T. who could boldly claim their apostleship were the "13." None of the 1st century apostles like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, or Silas claimed their apostleship. It was recorded as such, yet they were not "titled" as such. I believe the same should be true today. When someone calls him- (or her-) self an "apostle," probably he (or she) is not, yet many others are indeed apostles, given as gifts to men by the Head.
Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?
I wouldn't totally object to calling someone an apostle today. My chief point was that the LRC borrowed the apostolic status of Paul and others and imbued it to WL. So I think every LRC member at one time wondered, "Is God giving WL further revelation?" I know staunch LSMers have no problem with that, and to me it's dangerous.
So as long as we are in agreement that today's apostles cannot further establish the faith (say by suggesting that the local ground in now an article, as some have), and that they cannot assert authority over churches, then we are close enough in agreement for government work.
The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?
Hopefully I've answer this. My assertion is that there are not anymore apostles of the 1st century rank who could establish the faith. There can be a kind of apostle now. But not with the authority given to those first ones. How can I say this? First the faith has been established already. Second, outside of signs and miracles identifying a 1st rank current apostle (2 Cor 12:12), designating a person with the kind of authority Paul had is just way too subjective given what would be at stake.
ZNPaaneah
08-27-2011, 03:47 PM
So does that mean you're coming to us from there?
No, from home. My shift was (and is) 10pm to 10am, though it seems I won't be able to leave tomorrow at 10am. We were stocking 12,000 MRE's and similar rations of water last night. And as exhausting as that was, putting up cots is truly a back breaking experience.
Igzy, I'm surprised you said that. After thinking back over some of your past "debates" with SI, SC, and others (recently Ryan?), including myself at times, I eventually came to the conclusion that sometimes you place "winning" over friendships.
Hopefully I am wrong. Perhaps it is not your goal, but it does seem that way at times to me.
Didn't you do the same when you asked me if I still beat my sister? Anyway, I admit I get carried away at times. But it's not about winning with me. It's about getting to the truth. Friendships and people should come first though, and sometimes the line is gray. I'm trying to do better though, I really am. Not perfect and still learning.
Didn't you do the same when you asked me if I still beat my sister? Anyway, I admit I get carried away at times. But it's not about winning with me. It's about getting to the truth. Friendships and people should come first though, and sometimes the line is gray. I'm trying to do better though, I really am. Not perfect and still learning.
What? I didn't know you had a sister.
What? I didn't know you had a sister.
It was on the old forum when you got mad at me about SI. I told you that I sometimes got in philosophical arguments with my sister. Later you asked me if I still beat her, meaning beat her up verbally.
I'm curious where these are noted as apostles. I considered them co-workers. But not necessarily apostles themselves.
Here are some relatively unknown folks who were considered apostles. Phil 2.25 Epaphroditus was Philippi's apostle. Acts 14.14 Barnabas was an apostle. I Cor 15.7 implies a large number of apostles, separate from Paul and the Twelve. Rom 16.7 says Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles. Junia is especially interesting because the name is feminine. Other verses list other apostles.
I wouldn't totally object to calling someone an apostle today. My chief point was that the LRC borrowed the apostolic status of Paul and others and imbued it to WL. So I think every LRC member at one time wondered, "Is God giving WL further revelation?" I know staunch LSMers have no problem with that, and to me it's dangerous.I agree with this. Rome endues popes with the status of Peter. The Recovery endues WN and WL with the "better" status of Paul. Neither systems have been blessed by this error, and many saints have suffered loss, being robbed of Christ, the Head.
Didn't you do the same when you asked me if I still beat my sister? Anyway, I admit I get carried away at times. But it's not about winning with me. It's about getting to the truth. Friendships and people should come first though, and sometimes the line is gray. I'm trying to do better though, I really am. Not perfect and still learning.
I do remember some discussion about your sister. I wasn't "doing the same," rather pointing out what you seemed to do, without realizing it. Sorry if I crossed the line.
Of course, none of us is perfect. I hope I am not implying that I am. In fact, I may have chased off as many posters as you have. The latest one may be KisstheSon. :eek:
manna-man
08-27-2011, 10:59 PM
Your funny! :D
KTS has followed his personal convictions.
No one has run him off, and if I know KTS, he will be lurking.
Don't worry, be happy. :D
Peace which comes by the light of the world,
Don Jr.
we had a lengthy discussion before on the origin of the teaching of the MOTA and everyone agreed that it came from RG after the Philippians training. First, for a few months after the training he was developing the teaching, little glimmers here and there in the meeting. Then about 8 months later he was bolder, laying out the entire teaching to the church in Houston. Then in Irving he began pushing it on other elders.
I would recommend the teachings of Jesus over the teachings of RG. Don't forget there were numerous instances in the gospels where the discussion of "who's the first" came up. Jesus was clear: if you want to be first, be last.
The teachings in the Epistle to the Hebrews echoes this. There is a minister of the age today, and it is Jesus. Period. (Hebrews 1:2) Today God's speaking, His oracle, is in Jesus Christ the Nazarene, crucified and risen and ascended and glorified.
Any and all of us can and should strive to be vehicles to express Jesus on earth today, and be "ambassadors of Christ". But any discussion of earthly positions and hierarchies misses the mark... there is indeed a celestial hierarchy, but because of the fall, any striving to be "first" here on earth is to play into the enemy's hands. Don't think that just because you are in the church you can safely create hierarchies, and exert control over one another ("one publication" etc). No; Satan is not called the subtle one for nothing. See e.g. Genesis 3:1, 2 Corinthians 11:3, Revelations 12:9
Here are some relatively unknown folks who were considered apostles. Phil 2.25 Epaphroditus was Philippi's apostle. Acts 14.14 Barnabas was an apostle. I Cor 15.7 implies a large number of apostles, separate from Paul and the Twelve. Rom 16.7 says Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles. Junia is especially interesting because the name is feminine. Other verses list other apostles.
Good stuff. But couldn't 1 Cor 15:7 be taken to imply that a true apostle has seen Jesus? Especially when combined with 1 Cor 9:1?
"He also appeared to James, and then to all of the apostles." [emphasis mine] 1 Cor 15:7
"I am free. I am an apostle. I have seen the Lord Jesus and have led you to have faith in him." 1 Cor 9:1
I understand the general meaning of the word that we translate "apostle." And there is some evidence that there were many who laid claim to being an apostle because there was reference made to those who call themselves apostles, yet no clear definition of what they considered the criteria unless we assume that the "have seen Jesus" was an implied requirement.
But the most important thing that I see is that there were some who were designated as apostles and that is not something that can be clearly repeated. This is not to say that there is no such thing as an apostle in a general sense. But to declare that you are an apostle seems a little like claiming to be an oracle. Not entirely so, because while God spoke clearly to say there are no oracles other than those he has declared to be so, he has made no clear statement on apostles. But he did designate some, and then it would appear that some others designated themselves.
I'm more prone to accept that in this day and age, there is not something called an apostle that stands in the way that Peter, John, James, Paul, and a few others did in that day. For that reason, the alternate term of "missionary" is highly preferred because to me it places bounds on the calling and commission of the "sent one." To say "apostle" seems to presume broad power and authority that there is no evidence actually exists. And it seems to be used almost exclusively in the context of leaders of small groups who have an exalted and authoritarian leader — like Lee. And used by the person claiming the authority (even if a back-door claim — like Lee).
I'm more prone to accept that in this day and age, there is not something called an apostle that stands in the way that Peter, John, James, Paul, and a few others did in that day. ...To say "apostle" seems to presume broad power and authority that there is no evidence actually exists. And it seems to be used almost exclusively in the context of leaders of small groups who have an exalted and authoritarian leader — like Lee. And used by the person claiming the authority (even if a back-door claim — like Lee).
There seems to have been a general consensus among the believers that Peter, James, John, Paul, and a few others were indeed apostles. But that consensus seems to have faded save in the cases in which OBW noted, with leaders and groups having control issues.
Ohio's statement that Paul's "God gave some to be apostles..." indicates an enduring trend, versus a short-term event, does not seem self-evident in the reading, nor does it seem very compelling in the historical record.
And speaking of the historical record, I have what I call the "300 Year Rule"; I think it takes time for the objective lens of history to clarify and judge the works of the christian personality. I am able to make up my mind easier with Erasmus and Luther and Calvin, and with Wesley and Edwards, and to decide what merits value or not, than I can with D.L. Moody or Spurgeon or the 20th century figures.
So we might make a case, if it really mattered to us, that some historical figures approached the impact on the church that Paul or John had, but it becomes harder when we asses a Rick Warren or a Billy Graham. With contemporaries, ironically, we see so little and are more clouded with subjective criteria, and it makes it difficult to gain the same perspective and rough consensus we have with the early apostles.
So to me it becomes like the trinity or the free will/God's sovereignty debate or the rapture/tribulation/millenium discussions; subjects that while not entirely irrelevant or unbiblical are (to me) of limited profit, difficult to gain consensus on, and open to endless varieties of debate and interminable wrangling.
Good stuff. But couldn't 1 Cor 15:7 be taken to imply that a true apostle has seen Jesus? Especially when combined with 1 Cor 9:1?
"He also appeared to James, and then to all of the apostles." [emphasis mine] 1 Cor 15:7
"I am free. I am an apostle. I have seen the Lord Jesus and have led you to have faith in him." 1 Cor 9:1
Many notable Christians have made this claim, and for good reason I suppose, since it is convenient and "clean" to claim there are no more apostles. Personally, I wish this were the case, because by noting ones like Epaphroditus are apostles, a whole host of complications are introduced. I'm sure the ones working with Paul, who were considered to be apostles in his epistles, were legit. Others, however, looked favorably upon the perks of the apostleship, and claimed it for their themselves. These ones caused great damage to the gospel, and Paul referred to them as "super-apostles."
I Cor 15.5-8 indicates an order of witnessing the resurrected Christ (sorry to the many dear and seeking sisters who were left out of this list) --
Cephas (Peter)
The Twelve
500 brothers
James, brother of the Lord, leader in Jerusalem, author of epistle
All the apostles
Saul called Paul
Some observations here --
Paul gets a "dig" into James, by noting how many saw the resurrected Jesus before James, His own brother, indicating how slow James was to finally believe
Paul differentiates the "Twelve" from "all the apostles." Perhaps he is considering the 120 at Pentecost all to be "apostles." Perhaps these were later considered an expanded grouping beyond the original Twelve. Acts 1.4-8 supports this view, calling them "witnesses."
Note that Judas was replaced. Apparently there were many "alternate jurors" who had witnessed all the "testimony" over the last 3 plus years with Jesus. Matthias was selected (Acts 1:21-26) as one of many brothers who were with them "all the time from the baptism of John until the ascension."
Hence, to the earliest disciples with Peter leading at the time, having "Twelve" designated as "witnesses of the resurrection," was extremely important. They felt it was better to pick a replacement themselves, than to be limited to "the eleven" remaining ones, hand-picked by the Lord.
The "secondary" apostles mentioned in the epistles, like Epaphroditus and Timothy, who were saved in the Gentile world, long after Jesus departed from the earth, could not be included among those listed above who had seen the Lord Jesus.
Concerning I Cor 9.1, Paul definitely includes himself with the other apostles, at least with the greater number of perhaps 120 apostles. The book of Galatians is Paul's assertion that he should be ranked with or ahead of even the "Twelve." This assertion by Paul identifies the ongoing "battle" which we witness in the Acts and Epistles.
Actually it was Paul who really "defined" the truth of the N.T. Without his calling and commission by the Head, even the "Twelve" may have deteriorated in time into a modified Jewish-only gospel. As the truth-standard-bearer, Paul uplifted the truth taught by the "Twelve," restoring and preserving it to its original glory, as they had received from the Lord.
ZNPaaneah
08-29-2011, 01:06 PM
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
1. The gift of apostles is listed with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Unless you want to say that there haven’t been anymore of any of these gifts since the days of the Apostle John I see nothing from these verses to suggest that the gift of Apostles is any different from the other gifts.
2. The gifts listed in verse 11 are given for the perfecting of the saints. Unless you want to say that the saints were perfected back in the time of the Apostle John why would you think the Body is no longer in need of Apostles?
3. The gifts are for the work of the ministry. Did this work cease at the time of the Apostle John? If not, why would the apostles no longer be given?
4. The gifts are for the building up of the Body of Christ. Did the building up of the Body of Christ cease after the Apostle John? If not, why would the apostles no longer be given since that was the purpose for which they were given.
5. Now it seems to me that verse 13 kind of explains where exactly we are headed: until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith (Paul may have arrived at this already, but the goal was for all of us to arrive, I think we are all in agreement that we certainly have not all arrived at this oneness yet).
When I read this verse the gift of apostles is put right next to the gift of pastors. No one is arguing that we no longer have pastors. I don’t see the slightest indication from these verses that the gift of the Apostles only refers to those that saw Jesus or who wrote scripture.
I have read the many lengthy posts. I understand that Christian history is full of false apostles, super apostles, false Christs, and false prophets. To me you can’t have a forgery without the real thing. So whereas the tendency seems to be to shy away from the term due to its misuse, I think the more appropriate response is to fight the pressure. (In football, when you play defense you are taught to fight the pressure, if they are pushing you one way you want to go the other.) This is how I understand Revelation 2:2 “I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:”. Why would you need to test and examine those that say they are apostles in order to find them liars if the NT taught that the Apostles only referred to those that wrote scripture or that saw Jesus? It seems to me that this wasn’t simply a matter of filling out a checklist, but was a difficult and arduous process and the Lord is commending the saints for doing this.
Also, we know at the end of the age the Lord will send the 2 witnesses. Likewise we know that there will be an antichrist and a false prophet. It seems to me that discerning between a forgery and the real thing will be a very valuable skill that all Christians need to know. So I don’t buy the idea that this is a useless discussion or that it is merely a matter of titles or semantics.
The gift of apostles is listed with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Unless you want to say that there haven’t been anymore of any of these gifts since the days of the Apostle John I see nothing from these verses to suggest that the gift of Apostles is any different from the other gifts..
I see human logic at work here... You say that if there are not apostles today then there cannot be any gifts given. Why? Why can't there be some gifts given today? Doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition until the Lord returns.
The gifts listed in verse 11 are given for the perfecting of the saints. Unless you want to say that the saints were perfected back in the time of the Apostle John why would you think the Body is no longer in need of Apostles?
Again you are imposing circumstances upon ours. If something happened once, it must be a necessity for all time. I don't see it.
I don’t see the slightest indication from these verses that the gift of the Apostles only refers to those that saw Jesus or who wrote scripture.
And I don't see the slightest indication from these verses that apostles are required in perpetuity for the body to function.
Why would you need to test and examine those that say they are apostles in order to find them liars if the NT taught that the Apostles only referred to those that wrote scripture or that saw Jesus? It seems to me that this wasn’t simply a matter of filling out a checklist, but was a difficult and arduous process and the Lord is commending the saints for doing this..
When John wrote about testing those who say they are apostles, there were multiple claims among the fellowship (not only Paul and John and Peter, but ambitious Johnny-come-latelys) for this title. Just as Paul and John and Peter have departed, so have those claims receded to the "fringes" of christianity. Just because there may be some today claiming to be apostles doesn't mean that there must therefore be true apostles among us.
Also, we know at the end of the age the Lord will send the 2 witnesses. Likewise we know that there will be an antichrist and a false prophet. It seems to me that discerning between a forgery and the real thing will be a very valuable skill that all Christians need to know
Unless I see some compelling reason to find apostles among us I am wary;
from my contacts in christianity I think many are similarly wary.
Go back to Igzy's question. Just suppose the verse "God gave some to be apostles" describes not just Paul's time but is actually a requirement for all times. Suppose "You tried some who claimed to be apostles and were not" in the first century means that therefore we in the 21st century need to try and approve some who claim to be apostles and in fact are.
How do we go about such a task? I don't see anybody making much headway except the fringe sects with their exalted leaders. And I put the RCC there, too. I don't see the Pope as some "bishop-approved" apostle.
On the other hand, have you ever heard of the "Throne of James"? Have you ever heard of the "desposyni"? The speed in which the believers elevate some beyond their allotted portion is rather disconcerting, and echoes (for me) the original fall, of the original "Light bearer" (Lucifer) who presumed a place not his.
See also Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."
I think it is a fearful thing to presume a place not expressly given by God. How are we collectively to determine whether or not Joyce Myers or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or pastor Chuck Smith or whomever is actually an apostle?
To me, the parable in Luke 14 seems equally Biblical, and timely, as Ephesians 4:11. When the Master gives a feast, take the last seat. Don't sit somewhere you don't belong. If anyone out there wants to sit in the seat marked "Apostle", go for it. I see no compelling reason we the christian polity should prop any of them up.
Unless apostles can operate effectively as apostles without being recognized as apostles it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. On the other hand, if they can operate effectively as apostles without apostolic recognition then the need to recognize them is moot. However, as aron said the Lord said we should discern false apostles, which means we should discern true ones as well.
This discussion is really academc if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion. I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do? How do we know a true apostle? Z said by their fruit. What fruit, exactly?
Here are few names.
Andrew Murray
Watchman Nee
Billy Graham
A.W. Tozer
T.A. Sparks
C.S. Lewis
Witness Lee
Titus Chu
Joel Osteen
Beth Moore
Joyce Meyer
John Stott
J.I. Packer
Rick Warren
Do you consider any of these apostles? Why or why not?
Unless apostles can operate effectively in today it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. This discussion is really esoteric if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion.
I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do?
Apostles are sent by the Lord with a specific commission.
Paul was an apostle, but he was also an evangelist, shepherd, and teacher.
Peter was an apostle, but was also an elder.
An apostle cannot just be a writer, a speaker, a gifted teacher, or a productive mega-church builder. He must be a field worker, hence the word "sent."
I think it is very safe to say that ones like Hudson Taylor, Bakht Singh, and Watchman Nee are apostles. These ones were pioneering workers, who "turned their world up side down."
No matter who is proposed as an apostle, there will always be detractors. The same was true of Paul. Thousands in the early church refused to recognize him.
Unfortunately, the topic of apostleship today has been reduced to esoterics, since few genuine apostles will dare to touch the subject. Hence, we are left with only a handful of frauds today who claim this title, ones like Apostles Bill and Jane Hamon. Outside of certain Pentecostal circles, however, no one would recognize them, or believe in their claims. The same things could be said of prophets.
If I had to define an apostle, I would look for a life-long, life-changing, pioneering work, marked by suffering and hardship, and blessed by the Head with both signs and much fruit. There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.
I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do? How do we know a true apostle? Z said by their fruit. What fruit, exactly?
If we are to judge apostles and discern via fruit, then we need an (arbitrary) number as a threshold for apostle-hood. Sort of like the RCC determining who are the real saints among us.
So I propose founding at least 6 churches of 200 members or more.
In my mind's eye, "...and it's Witness Lee coming around the bend! Dong Yu Lan closing fast!! Titus Chu fading by the post!!"
Inspired (partly) by Monty Python's "Queen Victoria Handicap" skit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktYMkxD0Fzc
awareness
08-29-2011, 02:32 PM
Unless apostles can operate effectively as apostles without being recognized as apostles it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. On the other hand, if they can operate effectively as apostles without apostolic recognition then the need to recognize them is moot. However, as aron said the Lord said we should discern false apostles, which means we should discern true ones as well.
This discussion is really academc if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion. I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do? How do we know a true apostle? Z said by their fruit. What fruit, exactly??How about raising the dead and healing the sick?
ZNPaaneah
08-29-2011, 02:41 PM
I see human logic at work here... You say that if there are not apostles today then there cannot be any gifts given. Why? Why can't there be some gifts given today? Doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition until the Lord returns.
No, I didn't say that.
Again you are imposing circumstances upon ours. If something happened once, it must be a necessity for all time. I don't see it.
No, I am not imposing anything. Try reading my post again.
And I don't see the slightest indication from these verses that apostles are required in perpetuity for the body to function.
I don't understand what you are saying. I don't understand "perpetuity". I don't even know if this is a response to my questions. Do you disagree that Apostles were given for the perfecting of the saints? For the work of ministry? For the building of the Body? Just as the gift of pastors was as well? If so, do you think that the saints were perfected at the time of John, or that the work of ministry was completed, or that the building of the Body of Christ was completed? If you don't, then based on what would you assume that we no longer need apostles?
When John wrote about testing those who say they are apostles, there were multiple claims among the fellowship (not only Paul and John and Peter, but ambitious Johnny-come-latelys) for this title. Just as Paul and John and Peter have departed, so have those claims receded to the "fringes" of christianity. Just because there may be some today claiming to be apostles doesn't mean that there must therefore be true apostles among us.
Pretty strange comment seeing that it is posted on "Local Church Discussions" an internet forum that could easily be described as having the mission to test the claim of whether or not WL is the MOTA.
Unless I see some compelling reason to find apostles among us I am wary;
Once again, you are not responding to what I said. I did not suggest a compelling reason to find apostles. Rather I said there is a compelling reason to test whether or not someone is an apostle. Discerning between false teachers and true teachers is clearly a compelling function in the NT. My reference to the Church in Ephesus is only one of many possible references that could be made.
from my contacts in christianity I think many are similarly wary.
Go back to Igzy's question. Just suppose the verse "God gave some to be apostles" describes not just Paul's time but is actually a requirement for all times. Suppose "You tried some who claimed to be apostles and were not" in the first century means that therefore we in the 21st century need to try and approve some who claim to be apostles and in fact are.
How do we go about such a task?
What do you think we are doing on this forum? Look at the threads. We recently had a lengthy discussion on Pray Reading and RG's book. This is what is currently happening on this forum, we are trying those that purporting to teach the truth to us to see if it is so. It is a difficult process. It requires that we can cut straight the word of God and apply the truth to the present situation. It is a spiritual exercise. But this is the task that we are doing. We are teaching how to do it by example. In this case I would say the key principle is to not add to or take away from the divine record. Also, I would add that just because there is pressure to drop the term and as a result many other Christians are shying away is also not a valid reason to teach this as truth.
I don't see anybody making much headway except the fringe sects with their exalted leaders. And I put the RCC there, too. I don't see the Pope as some "bishop-approved" apostle.
And if you could show from the NT that this was in fact the case it would be one more nail in the coffin. If you put the RCC with the fringe sects then I obviously do not know what you mean by "fringe" sects. I have heard a lot of comments made about the RCC, but "fringe" sect is certainly not one of them.
On the other hand, have you ever heard of the "Throne of James"? Have you ever heard of the "desposyni"? The speed in which the believers elevate some beyond their allotted portion is rather disconcerting, and echoes (for me) the original fall, of the original "Light bearer" (Lucifer) who presumed a place not his.
See also Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."
The NT talks about "lust of the flesh". Should we therefore forbid marriage (as the RCC and others have) as a response? Some people are prone to being an alcoholic, Paul said that if wine stumbles my brother then I won't drink wine. Why not create a teaching in the NT that since wine is a stumbling stone to some, we as a religion will drink no wine? Some groups do this, there is a famous OT example of this, it was part of the vow of the Nazarite, James gave laws concerning not eating certain foods. Yet Paul doesn't forbid wine. The abuse of wine doesn't change the fact that used properly it is good, which is why he recommended Timothy to drink a little wine. In Ephesians 4 Paul says 4:14 "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" A sail boat is designed with a keel. This keeps the boat sailing straight when the wind wants to blow it to the side. Without the keel you would only be able to sail in the direction the wind is blowing. With a keel you can sail in any direction you wish. The wind doesn't tell you which way to go. You are being pushed by the wind, that is not a reasonable response.
I think it is a fearful thing to presume a place not expressly given by God.
Yes.
How are we collectively to determine whether or not Joyce Myers or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or pastor Chuck Smith or whomever is actually an apostle?
I think I already answered this. Learn from our example on this forum. This is exactly what we are doing with regard to WL and others. This same process can be applied to the rest of them.
To me, the parable in Luke 14 seems equally Biblical, and timely, as Ephesians 4:11. When the Master gives a feast, take the last seat. Don't sit somewhere you don't belong. If anyone out there wants to sit in the seat marked "Apostle", go for it. I see no compelling reason we the christian polity should prop any of them up.
The question, at least for me, is not about propping them up. The question is "do I receive their word or not". LSM, WL and WN have a lot of publications. What are we to make of them? Are they the "pure word", are they healthy teachings, or should we reject them out of hand?
Paul was an apostle, but he was also an evangelist, shepherd, and teacher.
Peter was an apostle, but was also an elder.
Don't forget John. He was an apostle, and is clearly presenting himself in Revelation as a prophet. See e.g. Revelation 22:9 "you and your brothers the prophets" and 10:11 "you must prophesy" and 22:10 "do not seal the words of this prophecy".
If I had to define an apostle, I would look for a life-long, life-changing, pioneering work, marked by suffering and hardship, and blessed by the Head with both signs and much fruit. There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.
I vote for Desiderius Erasmus on these grounds. Luther and Calvin are out because their ministries were marred by violence. Both approved of violence or used it to gain the kingdom. Fail.
Wesley is in.
There are my 2 apostles. What church should I join? (Just kidding).
The question, at least for me, is not about propping [apostles] up. The question is "do I receive their word or not". LSM, WL and WN have a lot of publications. What are we to make of them? Are they the "pure word", are they healthy teachings, or should we reject them out of hand?
I receive a lot of teachings by people whom I accept as believers, not apostles. Apostleship is not going to determine (for me) whether someone's book gets on my shelf.
I receive teachings by examining them. I don't have to reject anything out of hand if it's not an apostle.
I like some of Lee's teachings. I don't agree with many of them.
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
The gift of apostles is listed with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Unless you want to say that there haven’t been anymore of any of these gifts since the days of the Apostle John I see nothing from these verses to suggest that the gift of Apostles is any different from the other gifts.
And I see nothing from these verses that requires all of these gifts in perpetuity. You have an "all or nothing" requirement here which I don't see.
And if your requirement is "Until we all come to the fulness etc" then our required apostle can be the ones who wrote the Bible.
ZNPaaneah
08-29-2011, 02:55 PM
Unless apostles can operate effectively as apostles without being recognized as apostles it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. On the other hand, if they can operate effectively as apostles without apostolic recognition then the need to recognize them is moot. However, as aron said the Lord said we should discern false apostles, which means we should discern true ones as well.
This discussion is really academc if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion. I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do? How do we know a true apostle? Z said by their fruit. What fruit, exactly?
Here are few names.
Andrew Murray
Watchman Nee
Billy Graham
A.W. Tozer
T.A. Sparks
C.S. Lewis
Witness Lee
Titus Chu
Joel Osteen
Beth Moore
Joyce Meyer
John Stott
J.I. Packer
Rick Warren
Do you consider any of these apostles? Why or why not?
Before I touch that you have to define what an apostle is. I think that there must be a difference between "an apostle" and "a teacher". If you teach that we are saved by Faith, then I would say you are a teacher. But, if like Martin Luther, that teaching was earth shaking then I think you are not merely a teacher but an apostle. You were sent with this mission to unlock this truth. The truth, for whatever reason, had been locked away, and he was sent to "unlock" it.
Likewise I think there is a difference between being "an apostle" and "an evangelist". If you preach salvation, then I think you are an evangelist. If however, you take the gospel to a people that had hitherto never received it, as Hudson Taylor did, then perhaps you are more than an evangelist, you are an apostle. So I would clarify this, if your mission is to preach the gospel so that people can be saved, you are an evangelist. If your mission is to preach the gospel so that churches can be raised up, then you are an apostle.
Now I don't believe that the standards applied to an Evangelist or Teacher or Apostle should be any higher than that applied for an elder. I am not saying that they should be the same, rather I am just saying they don't need to be higher. No one expects an elder to be sinless, but we do expect them to be above reproach. Unlike an elder, I don't think these gifts require that you be married or to have raised your family well. But, if you are married you should be the husband of one wife (or vice versa), if you do have children you should have raised them well, etc. You don't have to be a teetotaler, but you should not be a drunkard, etc. Consider Martin Luther, if he is going to be examined and scrutinized the way he was, he has to above reproach otherwise the ministry will suffer. Likewise, Hudson Taylor was scrutinized by the Chinese, if he was not above reproach it would have damaged his ministry.
ZNPaaneah
08-29-2011, 02:57 PM
If we are to judge apostles and discern via fruit, then we need an (arbitrary) number as a threshold for apostle-hood. Sort of like the RCC determining who are the real saints among us.
So I propose founding at least 6 churches of 200 members or more.
In my mind's eye, "...and it's Witness Lee coming around the bend! Dong Yu Lan closing fast!! Titus Chu fading by the post!!"
Inspired (partly) by Monty Python's "Queen Victoria Handicap" skit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktYMkxD0Fzc
Alright, this had better be funny....
OK, that was worth the price of admission.:lol:
ZNPaaneah
08-29-2011, 02:59 PM
How about raising the dead and healing the sick?
Isn't that what is so appealing about the antichrist? He was raised from the dead.
ZNPaaneah
08-29-2011, 03:00 PM
I receive a lot of teachings by people whom I accept as believers, not apostles. Apostleship is not going to determine (for me) whether someone's book gets on my shelf.
I receive teachings by examining them. I don't have to reject anything out of hand if it's not an apostle.
I like some of Lee's teachings. I don't agree with many of them.
See Post #91
ZNPaaneah
08-29-2011, 03:06 PM
And I see nothing from these verses that requires all of these gifts in perpetuity. You have an "all or nothing" requirement here which I don't see.
And if your requirement is "Until we all come to the fulness etc" then our required apostle can be the ones who wrote the Bible.
No I my requirement is that I want the NT to state that there are no more apostles before I teach that.
The NT teaches that there were apostles.
The NT teaches that the Resurrected and Ascended Christ gave gifts to men, one of which was apostles, to help them grow into maturity (which I understand to be the end of the Church age).
The NT teaches that it is a good work to examine if someone is an apostle or if they are a liar.
The NT teaches that we will have to continue this work of discerning between those truly sent by God (the two witnesses) versus the frauds (antichrist and false prophet) right up until the Lord's return.
So I see 4 teachings in the NT that are very relevant to whether we have this gift today or not, what I don't see is a teaching that says this gift ended when the NT was canonized.
Isn't that what is so appealing about the antichrist? He was raised from the dead.
According to 2 Thessalonians 2 the "man of sin" will also claim authority not his.
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.
ZNPaaneah
08-29-2011, 03:16 PM
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.
His "take" as taught in the Ephesians Life Study messages is very similar to the stand Ohio and I have taken.
I am unaware of any changes made since 1985. I think the MOTA teaching is definitely a change from the Ephesians LS.
ZNP: The NT teaches that the Resurrected and Ascended Christ gave gifts to men, one of which was apostles (me: yes, he gave Paul and Peter and John and James) to help them grow into maturity
The NT teaches that it is a good work to examine if someone is an apostle (me: John and Paul and James and Peter were apostles; some others I skeptical of) or if they are a liar.
The NT teaches that we will have to continue this work of discerning between those truly sent by God (the two witnesses) versus the frauds (antichrist and false prophet) right up until the Lord's return.
So I see 4 teachings in the NT that are very relevant to whether we have this gift today or not, what I don't see is a teaching that says this gift ended when the NT was canonized.
You and I see different things. I don't see a teaching where this gift (apostles) was either stated or inferred as to be in perpetuity.
I would also be interested in what Nee thought about apostles in the "Normal Chrstian Church Life"... were they a requirement for perpetuity, or a one-time thing?
His "take" as taught in the Ephesians Life Study messages is very similar to the stand Ohio and I have taken.
I am unaware of any changes made since 1985. I think the MOTA teaching is definitely a change from the Ephesians LS.
What then was Lee's lineage of apostles? Did he ever give a definitive list of who was "in" according to his reckoning?
I always saw the arguement as "ministry", not "apostle". Lee said there could only be one ministry in each age, and everyone else's ministry had to be subject to "the" ministry. I never heard it framed in terms of "one apostle per age" until after he had died. By then I was gone so really wasn't up on the conversation within the LSM churches.
I don't understand what you are saying. I don't understand "perpetuity". I don't even know if this is a response to my questions.
The word perpetuity, in my usage, means "henceforth". As in, applicable now and henceforth. To one and to all.
Some things seem to be exegencies, covered in the NT, which are not to be strictly enforced in perpetuity, for all believers at all times.
Like, "women should cover their heads" or "women should be silent in the church". Many who hold Paul as an apostle don't keep this word, because times have changed.
"Drink a little wine for your frequent illnesses" is likewise outmoded.
"Slaves, obey your masters" is now passe.
Miracles also don't seem to be as commonplace among the believers. I can't remember the last meeting I went to where the building shook or tongues of fire danced over our heads. What happened once or twice is not taken as a requirement for all at all times.
Other things, however, are clearly inferred, or stated, as requirements for all believers, in perpetuity:
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
"Hold fast to what is good"
Etc.
Do you disagree that Apostles were given for the perfecting of the saints? For the work of ministry? For the building of the Body? Just as the gift of pastors was as well? If so, do you think that the saints were perfected at the time of John, or that the work of ministry was completed, or that the building of the Body of Christ was completed? If you don't, then based on what would you assume that we no longer need apostles?
I don't assume we no longer need apostles. I said we don't need NEW apostles. For apostles we have the [writings of] Paul, we have Peter and James and even Timothy (who didn't write or do much of note). Beyond that it recedes into murky darkness. Hudson Taylor and Watchman Nee? I don't see my life changing much. And Nee totally blew it, on his "one city/one church" idea. He misread the meaning of "ekklesia".
How much has my apostle (Erasmus) impacted you? None? Too bad; read Enchiridion Militis Christiani.
Actually, I recommend Erasmus' Enchiridion whether or not you hold him as an apostle. There is a section in that book (written 1505) which discusses "The Three Parts of Man" in a far superior manner than LSM's Lee has explicated.
I have never met a writer who shed more light on the scriptures than Erasmus. He is my "apostle". The RCC hated him because he "laid the egg Luther hatched" (see his "Praise of Folly"); the Lutherans hated him because he would not "join the cause".
His 3 parts of man in "Enchiridion" blew away Lee's exposition. Pure inspired enlightenment. Pure poetry. 500 years old and nobody can touch it.
I would also be interested in what Nee thought about apostles in the "Normal Chrstian Church Life"... were they a requirement for perpetuity of the Church Age, or a one-time thing?
And if so, who were Nee's apostles through the ages? And if he didn't delineate his apostles, then how could they be important?
I don't see how you can say "Apostles are important for the Body of Christ" and then when I say 'well who was the apostle(s) of the church in 1850 or 1950' and you shrug or dismiss the question.
A: The U.S. always needs Presidents for the functioning of the Government.
Q: Okay, then, who was President in 1850, or 1796? Who was the President in 1908, or 1918?
A: Buddy, I got all your Presidents for you. Give me a date, I can give you a President.
Ohio and ZNP and I guess Nee and Lee are moving along these lines. Apostles are needed at all times for the functioning of the Body.
Okay... and....
The RCC at least tries to answer this question. I give them credit. The Protestants really don't have a leg to stand on.
Unfortunately, the topic of apostleship today has been reduced to esoterics, since few genuine apostles will dare to touch the subject.
Why is that unfortunate? Is there really any other alternative? I mean, this is starting to sound like the local ground debate. "Unfortunately, people don't honor the local ground..." The fact is, the local ground won't work today. Agreeing who's correctly on the ground and who isn't can't be attained. Likewise, agreeing who is an apostle and who isn't can't either. This doesn't compare with the 1st century. True apostles then knew who they were. Does anyone in this age know they are an apostle? I seriously doubt it.
Who says apostles have to be recognized as apostles, anyway? They just carry out their commission to the Lord. All those who benefited from them need say is "Who was that masked man?" as they ride off into the sunset.
If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.
I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.
awareness
08-29-2011, 06:08 PM
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.Of course we know how Witness took this verse, and how his faithful followers took it.
But it actually says "He gave" not He gives...
I fear that the big problem is in what we mean by apostle. So, as ZNP has suggested, before tackling Igzy's list, we need a definition of apostle.
But even without a definition, I would suggest that our general thought concerning the apostles of the first generation of the church, despite the thought that all the men who saw Jesus after the resurrection were apostles, is something high and profound and probably not bestowed on that entire group. So whether it was actually true at the time of those men (including those we regard as The apostles, like John, Peter, Paul) we sort of create a tiering of apostles, creating a kind of uncertainty in the term. It causes us to equivocate — not in an intentional or underhanded way, but in a way in which we cause there to be some kind of differentiation that we are unable to define.
And so I wonder whether we understand apostles correctly at all. Let me take on three different approaches (and I have no idea which, if not another altogether, is correct):
First Alternative:
Is there something important to seeing the resurrected Jesus? Does that therefore limit the existence of true apostles in the sense used in scripture to those living at that time? If that is the case, is it possible that the gift of apostles to the church — even to this day — was the rapid spread of the truth into many people who could then spread it further? While scoffing at an RCC kind of apostolic succession, is there something to teaching what has been taught ultimately by the apostles? And are we aided to this day in knowing what that teaching is because some recorded things from the mouths of those men (whether officially penned by them or by those following them) and those writings were found to consistently reflect what the apostles as a group were teaching wherever they were? Even places that did not see those writings at first would realize a generation or two later that those writings were consistent with what they had been taught as handed down from whatever apostle first taught there?
This kind of apostle would have been a gift to the church. And would continue to be a gift to the church even though he (and all others) died generations ago. So Ephesians would still stand correct in its reference to the apostles that were given to the church for the work of ministry, the building up of the body, etc.
Second Alternative:
The second alternate is that, while we are not clear how to define it and identify it, there are continually apostles given to the church. We may not have the vision to identify them as such. But even with that, we are able to discern the false among them because, like any other teacher, they will display the signs that Paul identified. Or will teach in ways contrary to what has been handed down to us (in scripture?).
Third Alternative:
The third alternative is that there is something intentionally different in the use of the word "apostle" in certain places in scripture. If the raw definition of "apostle" is a "sent one," then after the lives of those special ones that we identify in the New Testament as apostles, there continues to be "sent ones." You know. Missionaries. People who bring the gospel where it has not been before. That is always a gift to the church. Is that the gift that was mentioned in Ephesians? I don't know. It is just a different way of thinking about it.
Igzy's list.
Now, having gone through all of that, I still have no idea how to define any on Igzy's list as an apostle, except for those who would have been classed as missionaries. They may or may not be. But even with that uncertainty, I believe that the only thing I could do is apply Paul's words of warning to suggest that Lee is not among those who might be. And despite my much softer stance concerning Nee, what I believe I have found enough error in his teachings to lead me to be wary of considering him with that great a status. And to think that in about March of 1973, I referred to both of them as apostles to someone at the church I had previously attended. I'm sure their eyes rolled when I said that. And they were probably right.
Who says apostles have to be recognized as apostles, anyway? They just carry out their commission to the Lord. All those who benefited from them need say is "Who was that masked man?" as they ride off into the sunset.
In line with Jesus' teaching. "Don't do your good works before men" (Matt 6:1)
If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.
Your 'no cheerleading' point reinforces my "300 year rule"; those who do good work need protection from us, as much as we do from them. If today I trumpet the writings of Erasmus, probably no one will try & start a new church. The man is long gone.
I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.
Reality?!? Who's talking about reality, man? We want theology... don't need no reality here...
I would suggest that our general thought concerning the apostles of the first generation of the church, despite the thought that all the men who saw Jesus after the resurrection were apostles, is something high and profound and probably not bestowed on that entire group. ... I wonder whether we understand apostles correctly at all.
Here are some comments about Jesus' and his immediate followers' "works of power".
Peter quoted in Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know"
Hebrews 2:3,4 "...this great salvation that was first announced by the Lord Jesus himself and then delivered to us by those who heard him speak? God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."
Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 "The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance"
Witness Lee said his function was as a "bible expositor", if I remember.
In the NT we have Jesus, those who saw Jesus and testified, and Paul's "apostle" all doing signs and wonders and miracles. Tough act to follow. Benny Hinn, where you at? Todd Bentley, please come back to Lakeland!
Why is that unfortunate? Is there really any other alternative? I mean, this is starting to sound like the local ground debate. "Unfortunately, people don't honor the local ground..." The fact is, the local ground won't work today. Agreeing who's correctly on the ground and who isn't can't be attained. Likewise, agreeing who is an apostle and who isn't can't either. This doesn't compare with the 1st century. True apostles then knew who they were. Does anyone in this age know they are an apostle? I seriously doubt it.
Who says apostles have to be recognized as apostles, anyway? They just carry out their commission to the Lord. All those who benefited from them need say is "Who was that masked man?" as they ride off into the sunset.
If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.
I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.
Do you ever just discuss the scriptures, or do you always resort to LRC rants?
After all I have written, you just obsess the word "unfortunately."
Besides my study of the word, I have just wasted my time in this discussion.
Here are some comments about Jesus' and his immediate followers' "works of power".
Peter quoted in Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know"
Hebrews 2:3,4 "...this great salvation that was first announced by the Lord Jesus himself and then delivered to us by those who heard him speak? God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."
Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 "The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance"
Witness Lee said his function was as a "bible expositor", if I remember.
In the NT we have Jesus, those who saw Jesus and testified, and Paul's "apostle" all doing signs and wonders and miracles. Tough act to follow. Benny Hinn, where you at? Todd Bentley, please come back to Lakeland!And for the most part, it is these things that creates for me the general thought that apostles are something significant in establishing the church and are not a necessary thing on an ongoing basis. Moses laid out the law through divine contact. And God displayed himself to the Children of Israel in highly miraculous ways. But the miracles began to shrink. You can say that to have won certain battles was a miracle, but it was not always understood in the same light as the parting of the Red Sea or the River Jordan. Then came the prophets. They primarily spoke concerning the sorry state of affairs in Judah and Israel, with much less after the return from captivity, then 400 years of silence. There was the writing of the history, but no more prophecy. Seems that everything was set. The time was just not right.
Then came Jesus. He spoke for three plus years, giving many signs and miracles. This was to establish that he was, at a minimum, a major prophet of God. This was necessary because his words were different from what had been taught for some time. We argue that everything pointed to him. But the understanding was not for a savior who left you within the earthly bondage, but one that threw off the outward bonds of outside rulers. They needed a reason to understand the direction of scripture as something besides the recreation of and earthly kingdom.
And then he was killed. Now you could get 500 people to say they had seen a dead man walking around alive. But the signs and miracles once again established that there was more than earthly conspiracy to push some man-made thing as just an alternate way to live. A good way but no more real than any other. And for the Jews that underpinned the first churches, they knew that the only true miracles were from the one true God. So those were somewhat key to establishing that their God was the author of what those apostles were preaching.
On the day of Pentecost, the people did not hear a bunch of Galileans speaking gibberish. They heard their own languages and knew that these men did not know those languages. The same sign was given to the Samaritans and Gentiles, not so much for their sake as to show the Jews that theses outsiders were now insiders.
But once the truth is established, there is no more need for miracle to underscore truth that otherwise seems contrary to the old thinking (another religion, or even the OT expectation of a worldly savior). So, while there were miracles and tongues, it might be that their ceasing is not simply in the New J, but a gradual thing that is the result of the more general acceptance of the truth in the gospel of Christ (even where that acceptance is not to the level of tru belief).
Now I have heard of real miracles that are more than just a re diagnosis of cancer (or now lack of cancer). Some that were clearly seen by the people of distant native tribes who had never heard or believed the gospel. Those miracles were at the hand of missionaries that could hardly have expected such a miracle. But it caused those natives to become open to hear something new.
But in America it is almost unheard of that there are miracles that cannot be attributed to an unlikely probability that became the actual case. Cancer that goes away (or was thought of as misdiagnosed). Where are the cases of broken bones being healed as straight as new? Or eyes blind since Scarlet fever at childhood suddenly seeing again? I do not doubt that there is the hand of God in those less obvious miracles. But it mostly speaks to those who already believe, not those who do not.
I think it is a serious error to suggest that the reason for this is that we as Christians are so flawed that God cannot find anyone to do those miracles. (And I do not say you have suggested that.) I think it is that even the unbelievers in most of the civilized world are not unaware of the gospel at some level, and have no reason to simply disbelieve because there is no evidence of its truth. There is much evidence without miracles.
And, returning to apostles, there may be good cause to understand the term at two levels and see that there was — past tense — the place for the "special" case, along with the miracles. And while I'm sure that someone will find a reference to a miracle toward the end of the recorded accounts, I note that it was given as a significant thing in the early chapters of Acts, and it then diminished through the accounts.
And just like observing that Paul addressed a church by the city's name, it may be no more than observation without clear meaning. But it does seem to follow the pattern seen in the OT. It took miracles to get the CofI to leave Egypt. It took miracles to keep them on the trail to Canaan. But the observable miracles in front of the entire congregation almost ceased after they ended the purging of the land. There were some small miracles in front of a few at the hands of a prophet. But no more pillars of fire. Or seas parting. Or firstborn dying overnight. They knew those things. They continually spoke of them. God was established.
"You come here to our town in Greece speaking of a god that we have never heard of and have no reason to want to hear of." Follow that with a lame man walking, or a blind man seeing. Something that they know is a miracle. They will accept that what you speak comes from a real god. Even The God. But while many have rejected truly accepting Jesus as savior, they accept him as "another god" or a prophet of the true God. Yes, a miracle might change their mind. But it is clear that God is not out to simply convert everyone because he wows them with miracles. Fills their pantry and refrigerator. Gives them a job on Wall Street (with only a 6th grade education). The miracles are the introduction. In worldly terms, it is the display of power and/or intellect that causes people to take note. After that, the report of seeing the power is enough. God wants people to believe by choice. He no longer needs them be wowed to even consider. Almost all do that at some level. They have virtually all heard of him. They have a basis to accept or reject. They might need a personal account of what God has done for one or more of us. But God is not simply unknown.
So there may be apostles now. But from what I can see, apostles of the kind who started the spread of the gospel in Acts are no more. We still have missionaries. There are still miracles. But those miracles are seen by the world as misdiagnosis, flukes of probability, the ability of the body to heal itself, etc. I believe. But I already believe. It might be that on a one-off basis there will be an individual who comes to believe because of them. But not major portions of small cities. The miracle is hidden.
And the missionaries continue to bring the gospel to the world. But as commissions and, for the most part, with the appearance of common man bringing stories of a strange god. Yet when some begin to believe, their gift to the church in that place is obvious. Without them, there is no church. Because of them, there is.
And, in the mean time, the demonstrations of showmanship in "healing meetings" says much to those who already believe, but virtually nothing to the world. They continually are unable to find anything of substance actually healed. Nothing that was clearly there before and now gone. No change to the physical structure of the human body that causes the lame to walk. Just the weak to take enough steps to get some ecstatic people to cry out "Hallelujah!" Enough adrenaline and endorphins to overcome the pain the the back for a short time.
Do you need an apostle like Paul now? Do we need to see God's awesome power demonstrated to believe in him? I think the answer to both is "no." We believe. We know. A miracle will get us too caught up in miracles — like the Corinthians. Much better to take the faith that we have and live the life that Jesus commanded. Prove that God is by the fact that we now live righteously. That we deal with justice and not with greed and covetousness. Having an apostle will not cause any of that to be better. It will distract us to things that do not change our lives. To things that look good in meetings. We will need an apostle to tell us to get our act together. To throw out the open fornicator. To quit having a three-ring circus in our meetings. Corinth was the epitome of thinking about the status of teachers/evangelists/apostles. And of a kind of hierarchy of gifts of the Spirit, with the pinnacle being the miraculous.
And they were a mess.
Bless the little Lutheran church down the street in which the faithful believers come weekly with no expectation of miracles or visitation from an Apostle, then go to live their Christian faith in the workplace, marketplace, neighborhood, and the home. I fear that those flocking to showy meetings to see miracles and listen to a self-proclaimed apostle get what they deserve — a temporal rush of endorphins. And then that preacher leaves the church to go out to eat, dressed in his over-the-top garb, and treats the waiters like dirt, leaving no tip. And I'm not making this up.
And one short addendum.
It is true that Paul told the people to beware of false apostles. But that was written to people still living in the time of the original apostles. There is nothing in that charge that is automatically eternal on scope. It could be true. But it also could be relevant only to the era.
It is not stated. Reading it as if it was intended to be a charge to everyone in every time is a huge presumption.
And if there are or are not Apostles in that sense in this day, the fact is that they are not overtly demonstrated as they were in the first generation of the church. If we want to start a new "recovery" of the apostolic church, with the need for a modern apostle, then I sense an new LRC coming. I would suggest that despite the errors seen at various levels in various Christian groups, the church is, for the most part, exactly what it is meant to be. There is not some 2,000 year drought of apostleship. And no ones' recast of history will convince me that there are certain ones (almost all leading down a line to the exclusive Brethren and the LRC) that were apostles in some overt sense. It is just reheated leftovers from Lee. No more of that for me. The church is really in too good a shape to tolerate so much nay-saying.
And as was somewhat recently sung, "It's getting better all the time."
Do you ever just discuss the scriptures, or do you always resort to LRC rants?
After all I have written, you just obsess the word "unfortunately."
Besides my study of the word, I have just wasted my time in this discussion.
I doubt you really believe any of this and I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to write it.
I manifestly refer to scripture, why would you question that? What, do I not do it as much as you?
I'm not obsessing about anything, I'm just pointing out an obvious bias you have. You haven't demonstrated that without a doubt there are still apostles, yet you say it's unfortunate that people don't recognize there are. My question is real. Why it that unfortunate? What does the church lose by not using the term "apostle?"
Just because someone doesn't agree with you immediately or at all, Ohio, does not mean your time is wasted. I've considered you point of view. Can you return the favor without resorting to hypebole? I appreciate your study. But you are not the only person studying here. We need the whole Body. Try to remember that. Thank you.
UntoHim
08-30-2011, 08:57 AM
If I had to define an apostle, I would look for a life-long, life-changing, pioneering work, marked by suffering and hardship, and blessed by the Head with both signs and much fruit. There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.
Who says apostles have to be recognized as apostles, anyway? They just carry out their commission to the Lord. All those who benefited from them need say is "Who was that masked man?" as they ride off into the sunset.
If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.
I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.
So there may be apostles now. But from what I can see, apostles of the kind who started the spread of the gospel in Acts are no more.
Do you need an apostle like Paul now? Do we need to see God's awesome power demonstrated to believe in him? I think the answer to both is "no." We believe. We know. A miracle will get us too caught up in miracles — like the Corinthians. Much better to take the faith that we have and live the life that Jesus commanded. Prove that God is by the fact that we now live righteously. That we deal with justice and not with greed and covetousness. Having an apostle will not cause any of that to be better. It will distract us to things that do not change our lives. To things that look good in meetings. We will need an apostle to tell us to get our act together. To throw out the open fornicator. To quit having a three-ring circus in our meetings. Corinth was the epitome of thinking about the status of teachers/evangelists/apostles. And of a kind of hierarchy of gifts of the Spirit, with the pinnacle being the miraculous.
Lots of good posts!
I just quoted a few excerpts that caught my attention.
I think if we start with some of the "lowest common denominators" we can proceed to attempt to answer the question of whether their are apostles today.
We know that those whom the Lord Jesus directly appointed were apostles.
The apostle Paul confirmed this, and claimed that he was the last of such apostles - "and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also" (1 Corinthians 15:8)
These original apostles received the gospel and ministry DIRECTLY from the Lord Jesus. (In Paul's case he received directly from the resurrected Christ, but directly from Christ nonetheless)
So I think we can all agree that there are no more apostles that were appointed directly by the Lord Jesus Christ. There are no more apostles who carry with them THIS degree of apostolic function and authority.
If three are such apostles then I would have to see that they are functioning as the early apostles and command that degree of authority, and furthermore they must be doing so in the wider Body of Christ and NOT just within the bounds of some sect or organization.
So now I have probably blown my cover. I do not think that anyone is functioning AS THE EARLY APOSTLES today. Does this mean there are no apostles today? Let's discuss it.
ZNPaaneah
08-30-2011, 09:46 AM
For me this discussion has gone from something trivial to something important. I don't mean to demean any posts, only that my initial reading was superficial.
To me the real issue is this, we are charged to examine if these things are so. Whether the person speaking it, as in WL's case, is considered "the apostle" or not. But the reality is, the more highly regarded some minister of the word is, the more important this becomes. I feel that is what we are doing (as I write this it occurs to me that a good name for an internet forum to do this would be "the Bereans").
The idea that someone is referred to as "The Apostle" would on the surface appear to be proof that they are in fact a liar. Yet I feel that is far too simplistic and ineffectual an argument.
What has hit me most is the fact that at the end of the age we will have two genuine witnesses, sent by God, to share a message with the entire earth. By every definition presented so far on this thread these two will be considered "apostles". They will have the sign of the apostles. At the same time that they are ministering we will also have two frauds: the antichrist and the false prophet. These two will also perform signs and wonders. So it is very clear to me that at the end of the age this discussion will come to a point and the salvation of many will be determined by how they treat this.
To me this proves beyond any reasonable doubt that we will have apostles on par with those at the beginning of this age. Arguing about whether there are any apostles on par with the 12 apostles is to me a non essential argument. What I do find compelling is to know how to discern the fraud from the genuine article.
That to me gives a much greater purpose to this forum than merely discussing WL. Was WL a fraud? If so, how do we know, if not how do know that?
UntoHim
08-30-2011, 12:47 PM
ZNP,
Interesting correlation you make here.
If you are referring to the two witnesses in Revelation 11 then I think they could more accurately be designated as prophets (cf:"and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." REV 11:3. The term "apostles" is used in Revelation several times and if these two "witnesses" are going to be apostles I think the term would have been used here as well. Besides you are jumping ahead of us here all the way to the end times. We know for sure WHO WERE apostles (those appointed directly by the Lord Jesus), the task for us now may be to agree on who was/is an apostles in the subsequent time after the first century up to today.
Some people consider a number of the early "Church Fathers" to be apostles and I think there is an argument to be made for this view. In some cases they were only a generation behind the original scripture writing apostles (in some cases were mentored by them). It seems to me that, although their writings did not make it into the canon, they were relating truth to the Church with nearly the same authority and power as the original apostles. This, of course, is my personal opinion so you can take that for what it’s worth.
Then we can get into the real messy area of “apostolic succession”. If this was a forum for current and ex Catholics then we probably could spend day and night on this notion, but I think we may want to stir clear of this sticky wicket – we’ve got lot’s of other things to keep us busy!
One thing you mentioned really caught my attention:
What I do find compelling is to know how to discern the fraud from the genuine article. That to me gives a much greater purpose to this forum than merely discussing WL. Was WL a fraud? If so, how do we know, if not how do know that?
“discern the fraud from the genuine article”… Now THIS is more applicable to where we are today. The fact is, that just as we know the “genuine article” of our salvation – what is recorded for us in the Bible: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” - so too we can know the “genuine article” of an apostle. I won’t take the time here, and others have already laid out some of the biblical descriptions of an apostle, suffice it to say that we have not been left in the dark when it comes to this matter.
Finally, I’m going to repeat some of the things that were quotes from other posters (again)
There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.
If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.
One of the last time “apostles” is mentioned in the NT is in Revelation 2:2 – “that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” I like how the NIV has translated this part. Most translations render it “who call themselves apostles” – a closer rendering of the Greek word here is “claim to be”. Of course the determinative thing is at the end - “and have found them false”. How did these believers in Ephesus find these people who claimed to be an apostle as false? My best guess would be that they were NOT teaching and preaching what was being taught and preached by the original apostles. These are referred to as “the apostles teachings” several times in Acts. So it seems to me one of the best ways to find out whether or not somebody is an apostle is to compare and contract what they preach and teach with what is actually taught in the New Testament.
ZNPaaneah
08-30-2011, 03:35 PM
ZNP,
Interesting correlation you make here.
If you are referring to the two witnesses in Revelation 11 then I think they could more accurately be designated as prophets (cf:"and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." REV 11:3. The term "apostles" is used in Revelation several times and if these two "witnesses" are going to be apostles I think the term would have been used here as well.
Your definition for apostle covered three criteria: they saw the Lord (these two witnesses met the Lord on top of the mtn and this is recorded in the gospels), they received their mission directly from the Lord (these two have received their mission directly from the Lord) and their audience was bigger than any one sect (these are speaking to the entire earth).
I gave a definition that no one has really disputed saying that an evangelist could be an apostle as well if their preaching was not merely to save souls but to also raise up a church. I also felt that a teacher could be an apostle as in the case of Martin Luther if the teaching unlocked truths to the entire body rather than teaching truths that the Body is aware of but perhaps new believers weren't.
OBW gave a number of possible definitions, one was that a missionary could be considered an apostle.
However, no one has said that an Apostle does not prophesy. On the contrary we all have agreed that the basic root is "sent one". These two are clearly "sent ones". The idea of an appointed mission from the Lord Jesus has been used by several, and again these two fulfill that point. Paul was a prophet, and he was an Apostle. John was a prophet and he was an apostle.
To prophesy means to speak for God. I see no contradiction at all in considering these two analogous to apostles based on all of the previously given definitions. To now come up with a new definition is akin to moving the goal posts.
Besides you are jumping ahead of us here all the way to the end times.
What?! Do you know something we don't? Please if you know when the end time is tell us. Why do you keep this to yourself? The Lord Jesus didn't know, Paul didn't know, but apparently you do?
We know for sure WHO WERE apostles (those appointed directly by the Lord Jesus), the task for us now may be to agree on who was/is an apostles in the subsequent time after the first century up to today.
Perhaps I have not been following the thread correctly. I thought Ohio presented a long list of apostles based on the NT record and everyone quibbled over the list. As a result they started giving their own definitions. Yes we know for sure that there were 12 "apostles" and Paul as well. We also know for sure that Apostle was listed as one of the gifts given to man along with evagelists and pastors and teachers. No one has suggested that the other gifts ended with the 12 (and Paul also) but for some reason they have tried to distinguish with the term apostle even though it certainly was never stated by Paul. As a result this discussion veered into Igzy and others asking who we thought other apostles since the time of John might be. In response I said that the 2 witnesses would be. I think I have been following the thread quite accurately.
Some people consider a number of the early "Church Fathers" to be apostles ...
One thing you mentioned really caught my attention:
“discern the fraud from the genuine article”… Now THIS is more applicable to where we are today. The fact is, that just as we know the “genuine article” of our salvation – what is recorded for us in the Bible: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” - so too we can know the “genuine article” of an apostle. I won’t take the time here, and others have already laid out some of the biblical descriptions of an apostle, suffice it to say that we have not been left in the dark when it comes to this matter.
Finally, I’m going to repeat some of the things that were quotes from other posters (again)
One of the last time “apostles” is mentioned in the NT is in Revelation 2:2 – “that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” I like how the NIV has translated this part. Most translations render it “who call themselves apostles” – a closer rendering of the Greek word here is “claim to be”. Of course the determinative thing is at the end - “and have found them false”. How did these believers in Ephesus find these people who claimed to be an apostle as false? My best guess would be that they were NOT teaching and preaching what was being taught and preached by the original apostles. These are referred to as “the apostles teachings” several times in Acts. So it seems to me one of the best ways to find out whether or not somebody is an apostle is to compare and contract what they preach and teach with what is actually taught in the New Testament.
I was the one who first quoted this verse, if I remember correctly (if not, sorry), either way I have quoted this verse repeatedly. My point is simple, why would you even have to examine them if the NT teaching was that after the 12 apostles there were no more. The very fact that they were taking these claims seriously enough to examine them and then being commended by the Lord in this work tells me that there is no NT teaching that the gift of apostles ended with the 12 (plus Paul).
ZNPaaneah
08-30-2011, 04:19 PM
Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
This sounds like the Lord Jesus has given them a mission, directly from Him.
Zechariah 4:11 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?
4:12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
4:13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
4:14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.
The witnesses are the two olive trees and according to this they are the two anointed ones. "The anointed one" is also translated "The Christ" or "The Messiah". Like the Kings and Priests, to be anointed suggests having been given a job to do. Clearly these two witnesses are sent by the Lord to do a job (Zechariah 4 provides more details). Jesus also said He was sent, and He is called "the apostle" of our calling.
I think it is generally understood that when the Lord returns the virgins whose lamps are going out are instructed to go and buy oil from these two "olive trees". No doubt they prophesy, but they have been sent with the purpose to provide oil for the immature saints.
What has hit me most is the fact that at the end of the age we will have two genuine witnesses, sent by God, to share a message with the entire earth. By every definition presented so far on this thread these two will be considered "apostles". They will have the sign of the apostles. At the same time that they are ministering we will also have two frauds: the antichrist and the false prophet. These two will also perform signs and wonders. So it is very clear to me that at the end of the age this discussion will come to a point and the salvation of many will be determined by how they treat this.What is never clear to me is how we can be clear that certain parts of Revelation and other apocalyptic revelations, which are by nature pictures, types, metaphors, etc., are intended to be read literally and which are to be read as pictures and metaphors.
And the typical answer is that if we think it could make sense literally, we read it that way, if it is does not, then we don't. We refuse to accept that even the somewhat commonplace language could be part of the metaphor.
Are you looking for a series of horses? Do you expect to see bowls in the sky pouring out all this stuff? Of course not. But since we can understand a literal resurrection of two ancient prophets appear as "two genuine witnesses." we insist that this must be literal.
But even if all that is true, what is it about having apostles, and looking for them, that benefits the church today? It seems that the focus on the individual leader is always the problem, not the solution. We get help from many sources. How many people today speak authoritatively in a manner that is square with the teachings from The apostles and hits us where we live today? Men (and women) who have become renowned, not for the size of the church they create, but the truth they speak. Some of them may be apostles. But we do them or us no service to speak of it in that manner.
This is not the era of the story-teller (the oral tradition) in which we continue to require the faithful retelling of what we otherwise do not have access to. We have the written word and an educated population that can read it. We still require those who give their occupation to the study of the word for our benefit. But while our education can makes us exceedingly foolish about how much we personally know and discern, we are able to see when teaching is going far from the source — the scripture. We can see the ridiculous extremes that Lee took so much of scripture. And even Nee. But we also are able to read through questionable teachers and pick and choose. That may be dangerous, not because we are exposed to error, but because we may not always discern the difference. Note the firestorm surrounding Rob Bell's Love Wins and the polarized camps for it entirely or opposed entirely. And while I think both are wrong, I believe that it is probably better that many of us not be exposed to the controversial because we are not all equipped to make good judgments.
But even when facing a controversy like the one surrounding Rob Bell, do you think that people are able to decide between truth and fiction/falsehood? I may think that many of the people I meet with are excessively dogmatic about certain things. But I also expect that they will not be lead astray by a false teacher. (Or even a false prophet or apostle.)
Why do we need to focus on them? Does scripture? Or does it mention them a few times? Are we putting the gospel of Christ — the one Jesus proclaimed — out of focus to zero-in on a small thing? Not saying it is irrelevant. But is there any evidence that it should be consuming?
We argue about elders, apostles, clergy, hierarchies, denominations. But seldom do we focus on what we are commanded to do. At some level, even our reading of the 7 letters in Revelation 2 and 3 is so focused on dealing with the things we see as their errors. But they are commended for their works. They are told to persevere. To rise above the problems. Not to fight the problems. For example, the thing that Laodicea was asked to do was not get hot or get cold, but open the door. It was not to rethink their riches, but to refocus their attention. And I don't think it even said to cast out the Jezebel. Not saying it shouldn't happen. But it was not a directive to do that, but to be sure that you are not caught up in it.
So we are no longer the church of the ground. But we might become the people of the apostles. But based on what command? On an uncertain record about them being gifts to the church? On the telling of a specific church at a specific time to discern false apostles? On a reference (in types and figures) to two apostles/prophets rising in the last days?
awareness
08-31-2011, 06:47 AM
Ask Awareness. I would find that shocking. During the Summer of 78 we spent months discussing the Max R expulsion. WL gave very clear messages concerning the truth. In those messages he strongly rebuked anyone who said he was the MOTA and said that if anyone said that you should stand up and rebuke them to their face. He even charged saints to stand up and rebuke him to his face if he said that. I would find it very hard to imagine that anyone could get away with what Mel Porter did to Awareness within a year of those messages.I never heard anything about "rebuking him to his face," but that's what I did.
I remember walking into the meeting hall on 6th street (a former Baptist church) and being met by a group of brothers asking with excitement, "have you heard of The Flow of Oneness?" The flow of oneness was that the river of life flows from the throne to the apostle on the earth. These brothers were excited because it meant that Lee was the apostle, as was told in the flow of oneness flow.
And I rebuked them to their face. I said, "Yes I've heard of it, and if you believe it, you don't want to talk to me." They went back on their heels.
This was probably around 1980, or there about, maybe early 79.
Word went immediately to Mel Porter that I said this. Things went hard for me after that, as I caught Lee/Mel-bots one Sunday morning in a back room, the tape room, praying against me by name, as I walked up the stairs to pray with the elders.
I also pretty much got in Mel's face, as when I prayed with the elders, I prayed against the flow of oneness.
So rebuking in their face didn't go well for me. Maybe I should have called Witness Lee to have HIM rebuke Mel to his face.
But I doubt Lee would have done that, as Mel brought the flow of oneness from an elders meeting, as if coming from Anaheim ... and Mel was a dyed-in-the-wool Lee-bot.
Paul Cox
08-31-2011, 07:02 AM
Whether or not you believe that there can be an official apostle today or not seems insignificant. It's just another issue for saints to shout past one another about. The real issue is that Witness Lee's promoting himself to be something he was not, and allowing his promoters to pump him up as something he was not has resulted in the tragedy that is the Living Stream Church.
Whether you call him "Apostle for the Age," or "Oracle," or "The Wise Master Builder," these are all titles we can argue on the particulars of. But the main issue is that Lee allowed himself to be regarded as all of these things. No matter how you slice it, that's just wrong and has no place in the church.
In his book, "Vision of the Age," it's clear that Lee believed in every "age" God only has "One Man" who has the blueprints for God's building tucked under his arm, and it is only that "One Man" who can bring forth God's vision for the Church on the entire Earth during that "age." Lee also leaves little doubt that he was that "One Man" for the age in which he lived.
That simply says it all. Whether or not you believe that there can be "Apostles" today, it is clear that Lee thought he was the one man for his age, just as he believed Paul was the one man for his age. So, yes, Lee believed he was on a par with Paul. Whether or not you believe he was an Apostle is immaterial.
Roger
In a theoretical sense and perfect world the title of apostle should not be objectional. Ohio and others have made this clear.
In a practical sense in the world we live in, though, the title has been used in recent centuries to prop up a person for the purpose of controlling others. In my opinion, the title apostle carries too much weight by virtue of association with the original apostles to be bestowed on anyone today (the 2 witnesses in Revelation might be the only exceptions.)
The problem is no one really knows for sure the extent of an apostle's authority. If we are to use the title of apostle, then understandable rules regarding the extent and limitations of an apostle's authority need to be put down in writing. "Unfortunately," as far as I know this has not been done in any satisfactory manner. In fact, the LRC exploited the vagueness of Lee's presumed authority as "apostle" to threaten, coerce and discipline members. All kinds of sheep herding and lamb sheering have been done in the name of his authority as "apostle."
If the LRC can do that then so can others.
I see little advantage to using the title today, and an awful lot of disadvantages. The Church knows who the gifted members are, with or with the titles. The Church knows who the sent ones and ambassadors are, with or without the title "apostle."
Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
What is never clear to me is how we can be clear that certain parts of Revelation and other apocalyptic revelations, which are by nature pictures, types, metaphors, etc., are intended to be read literally and which are to be read as pictures and metaphors.
And the typical answer is that if we think it could make sense literally, we read it that way, if it is does not, then we don't. We refuse to accept that even the somewhat commonplace language could be part of the metaphor.
Are we supposed to consider the two witnesses to be "pictures, types, metaphors, etc?" I don't think so. How about when they "prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days?" That is not metaphorical either. There are signs, however, and there are a number of signs in this section of scripture that brother ZNP quotes.
"Sackcloth" is a sign, as are "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks." As to whether the "fire that proceedeth out of their mouth" is a sign or not is uncertain. What should be taken literally is that there will be two witnesses for over three years who possess extraordinary powers. This part is not a sign. This is a prophecy so that the people of God will know when the time comes.
When their testimony is completed, they will be killed somewhat near where the Lord was crucified. This is not a sign. This is a prophecy that will definitely come to pass.
I think it is an excellent point made by ZNP that there will be a great need for the people of God to have proper discernment. The peoples of the earth were all fooled. They felt that these two witnesses, who were prophets, had "tormented them," and thus declared a new global holiday when they were murdered by the "beast."
From the Internet...
The Meaning of the Word “Apostle” (http://www.thecenters.org/articles/CFARApostles1.pdf)
In the New Testament, there are two basic meanings for the term “apostle.” In the most broad, general sense, any person who might be sent by God through the Church for a particular work, whether of leadership or not (cf. Phil. 2:25), can be classified under the term “apostle.” This broad meaning is derived from the correlation between the noun “apostle” and the Greek verb that means “to send.” Hence, in this very broad sense, there is no difficulty wth the concept that any Christian, in principle, can be called an apostle. For example, any person could be sent by a church to the mission field, and, in a broad, non-technical sense, this person in an “apostle” of God.
In the New Testament, however, the technical and restricted sense of the term is by far the most common. It refers only to the select group of the apostles of Christ. The word normally translated “apostle” (and its variations as noun and verb) is found 80 times in the Greek New Testament. It has the restricted and technical meaning of the word in no less than 73 of those instances. The broad, non-technical meaning (i.e., one who is “sent” for a task) is used only three times (John 13:16; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). One time it refers to Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1). The remaining three occurrences (Rom. 16:7; Acts 14:4; 14) present exegetical difficulties that make it difficult to determine with certainty if they are employed in the technical or non-technical sense.
There is no controversy about the broader, non-technical sense of the Word. It could be applied in reference to any person sent by the Church to a specific task – although it is arguably unwise to do so, since it is likely to generate confusion (because the New Testament uses it in the technical sense in the overwhelming majority of the instances). [emphasis mine]
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 08:21 AM
In a theoretical sense and perfect world the title of apostle should not be objectional. Ohio and others have made this clear.
In a practical sense in the world we live in, though, the title has been used in recent centuries to prop up a person for the purpose of controlling others. In my opinion, the title apostle carries too much weight by virtue of association with the original apostles to be bestowed on anyone today (the 2 witnesses in Revelation might be the only exceptions.)
The problem is no one really knows for sure the extent of an apostle's authority. If we are to use the title of apostle, then understandable rules regarding the extent and limitations of an apostle's authority need to be put down in writing. "Unfortunately," as far as I know this has not been done in any satisfactory manner. In fact, the LRC exploited the vagueness of Lee's presumed authority as "apostle" to threaten, coerce and discipline members. All kinds of sheep herding and lamb sheering have been done in the name of his authority as "apostle."
If the LRC can do that then so can others.
I see little advantage to using the title today, and an awful lot of disadvantages. The Church knows who the gifted members are, with or with the titles. The Church knows who the sent ones and ambassadors are, with or without the title "apostle."
But even if I agree with everything you say and all of your reasons and concerns, from our own experience we know that it is a futile exercise to try and get some written agreement about the use of the word.
First, WL used many terms, not merely "the apostle" (wise master builder, MOTA, etc).
Second, the LRC used a whole teaching that made them feel they were superior to the rest of Christians because they understood that Apostles were not once for all. Unless their is a clear teaching in the NT (as their is concerning the 7th day adventist) your convention to steer clear of the term will be meaningless in real applications.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 08:26 AM
Are we supposed to consider the two witnesses to be "pictures, types, metaphors, etc?" I don't think so. How about when they "prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days?" That is not metaphorical either. There are signs, however, and there are a number of signs in this section of scripture that brother ZNP quotes.
"Sackcloth" is a sign, as are "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks." As to whether the "fire that proceedeth out of their mouth" is a sign or not is uncertain. What should be taken literally is that there will be two witnesses for over three years who possess extraordinary powers. This part is not a sign. This is a prophecy so that the people of God will know when the time comes.
When their testimony is completed, they will be killed somewhat near where the Lord was crucified. This is not a sign. This is a prophecy that will definitely come to pass.
I think it is an excellent point made by ZNP that there will be a great need for the people of God to have proper discernment. The peoples of the earth were all fooled. They felt that these two witnesses, who were prophets, had "tormented them," and thus declared a new global holiday when they were murdered by the "beast."
Well also there are other prophesies throughout scripture, for example the Lord Jesus says "he is Elijah who is to come". This is mentioned in the gospels and also in the OT. It is clear from the scripture that Jewish scholars said that Christ could not come unless these two witnesses came first. No verse is of its own interpretation.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 08:35 AM
From the Internet...
The Meaning of the Word “Apostle” (http://www.thecenters.org/articles/CFARApostles1.pdf)
In the New Testament, there are two basic meanings for the term “apostle.” In the most broad, general sense, any person who might be sent by God through the Church for a particular work, whether of leadership or not (cf. Phil. 2:25), can be classified under the term “apostle.” This broad meaning is derived from the correlation between the noun “apostle” and the Greek verb that means “to send.” Hence, in this very broad sense, there is no difficulty wth the concept that any Christian, in principle, can be called an apostle. For example, any person could be sent by a church to the mission field, and, in a broad, non-technical sense, this person in an “apostle” of God.
In the New Testament, however, the technical and restricted sense of the term is by far the most common. It refers only to the select group of the apostles of Christ. The word normally translated “apostle” (and its variations as noun and verb) is found 80 times in the Greek New Testament. It has the restricted and technical meaning of the word in no less than 73 of those instances. The broad, non-technical meaning (i.e., one who is “sent” for a task) is used only three times (John 13:16; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). One time it refers to Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1). The remaining three occurrences (Rom. 16:7; Acts 14:4; 14) present exegetical difficulties that make it difficult to determine with certainty if they are employed in the technical or non-technical sense.
There is no controversy about the broader, non-technical sense of the Word. It could be applied in reference to any person sent by the Church to a specific task – although it is arguably unwise to do so, since it is likely to generate confusion (because the New Testament uses it in the technical sense in the overwhelming majority of the instances). [emphasis mine]
Good job in showing that there are two definitions and much of this debate has been between those using one of the two definitions.
However, I think in practical situations, such as the LRC and WL, we will find that groups refer to their "leader" in terms like "the apostle", etc. They will be able to support that claim with a Biblical basis that regardless of how tenuous they will never relinquish. I say this based on experience on this forum with how tightly opinions are held by most regardless of the evidence.
It would be nice if you could say the guy was a false teacher because he uses the term Apostle, that would be quick and easy. However, life is never so simple.
So what I would think would be much more useful is to decide what are the key factors that convinced you that WL was or was not "the apostle"? Also, what was the order? For example, were suspect behaviors the first thing that caused you to question that followed by further examination of the teachings. Or was it first the teachings that caused you to reconsider and the behaviors only confirmed your feeling.
Knowing the order would be helpful in understanding how to relate to those who hold that some teacher is "the apostle". Do they first need to see sin, or can they merely see the error in the teaching without seeing the sin.
Also, we have compared WL to Eli several times. The OT refers to Eli as the high priest. Do his failings annul his anointing? I am referring to Eli, I understand that Eli is a different case from WL, so one might feel Eli was still a High Priest irrespective of his failings whereas WL was not for some other reason.
It would be nice if you could say the guy was a false teacher because he uses the term Apostle, that would be quick and easy. However, life is never so simple.
So what I would think would be much more useful is to decide what are the key factors that convinced you that WL was or was not "the apostle"? Also, what was the order? For example, were suspect behaviors the first thing that caused you to question that followed by further examination of the teachings. Or was it first the teachings that caused you to reconsider and the behaviors only confirmed your feeling.
Well, the good news is that just because someone claims to be an apostle that is no reason to stand up and take notice and be on alert that he may well be one. I think the converse it true. It's up to a so-called apostle to prove his or her 1st rank apostleship.
Was Lee an apostle? In the broad sense, yes. In way the NT most commonly uses the term, no.
Does the Lord still send gifted leaders and visionaries to the Church? No doubt. Are we required to bestow them with the title apostle? No.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 09:03 AM
Well, the good news is that just because someone claims to be an apostle that is no reason to stand up and take notice and be on alert that he may well be one. I think the converse it true. It's up to a so-called apostle to prove his or her 1st rank apostleship.
Was Lee an apostle? In the broad sense, yes. In way the NT most commonly uses the term, no.
Does the Lord still send gifted leaders and visionaries to the Church? No doubt. Are we required to bestow them with the title apostle? No.
I am more concerned with helping those that are deceived.
What should be taken literally is that there will be two witnesses for over three years who possess extraordinary powers. This part is not a sign. This is a prophecy so that the people of God will know when the time comes.
I think it is an excellent point made by ZNP that there will be a great need for the people of God to have proper discernment. The peoples of the earth were all fooled. They felt that these two witnesses, who were prophets, had "tormented them," and thus declared a new global holiday when they were murdered by the "beast."
The two witnesses seem to be prophets, not apostles. They prophesy one thousand two hundred sixty days (Rev. 11:3). If Paul said in Ephesians 4 that God gave some as apostles and some as prophets, etc, and here are two sent ones prophesying, how can they be apostles?
Also, John presents himself in Revelation not as an apostle but as a prophet.
Paul said apostles would do works of power ("signs & wonders & miracles" 1 Cor 12. But someone who does works of power is not necessarily an apostle.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 10:41 AM
The two witnesses seem to be prophets, not apostles. They prophesy
Jesus prophesies, but He is called an apostle. John prophesies but He is an apostle. Paul said 2Tim 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
Paul said he spoke in tongues and prophesied. So prophesying, speaking in tongues, healing, preaching, teaching, etc. Doesn't discount the fact that he is also an apostle.
More from the internet...
Apostles Today? (http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/spring/15.37.html)
Somewhere in the middle are those who affirm the gift's activity today but in a more generic capacity. The word literally means "sent one," a designation that may be applied to many believers. But the middle-ground viewpoint acknowledges there is a difference between being gifted as an apostle (little "a") and possessing the authority of an Apostle (capital "A").
Terry King, pastor of Bridge of Life Church in Hagerstown, Maryland, says there are men and women currently doing apostolic ministry all over the world. As the executive director of Leadership Development Resources, a role that has King working with church leaders in over 20 nations, he has seen the evidence. "But," he adds, "very few of them recognize it as apostolic ministry, and they don't call it that."
The aversion to using any form of the word "apostle" is a holdover from the Reformation. "For hundreds of years Protestant churches have tried hard to not be Roman Catholic in terms of hierarchy and structure," says King. "But we still need leadership and structures. So the apostolic gift is still working—we just find new titles for it."
WL used many terms, not merely "the apostle" (wise master builder, MOTA, etc).
Second, the LRC used a whole teaching that made them feel they were superior to the rest of Christians because they understood that Apostles were not once for all. Unless their is a clear teaching in the NT (as their is concerning the 7th day adventist) your convention to steer clear of the term will be meaningless in real applications.
I remember an encomium by Lee about Nee called "A Seer of the Divine Revelation". Not sure where "Seer" comes in in Paul's hierarchy of Ephesians chapter 4, or the gifts in 1 Cor 12.
My impression is that vagueness suited the style. If needed, Lee could be a Bible expositor. A little chinese man who never told anyone what to do. If needed, he could be God's deputy authority, and God's present oracle, and the conduit for God's present move on the earth.
Or anything in between. Whatever suited the moment.
John prophesies but He is an apostle.
John seems to be a prophet in Revelation 22:9
"But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"
UntoHim
08-31-2011, 11:32 AM
Of course apostles prophesy. They also teach and evangelize, but does one need to be an apostle to be a "teacher" or an "evangelist" or a "prophet"? I wouldn't think so. Let's not get too far off track here guys.
Again, I think we can agree that the original apostles were apostles because they were appointed directly by the Lord Jesus. We have the biblical record. We know what they taught. We know how conducted themselves. We also have a good record of what the 2nd generation of "apostles", teachers and scholars taught. There is a very good record of what was taught by the early "church fathers". I'm not saying that any one of these 2nd generation church leaders or church fathers were apostles per se, but we need to have some sort of baseline to work with. Then we need to take this baseline and try to transfer this as best we can to the realities that we face today.
The early apostles were not dealing with Christianity (or the world for that matter) as we know it today, so can we really expect modern "apostles" to function in the Body of Christ as the early apostles did? I wouldn't think so. Yes, I would expect that they should teach and preach the same things, and minister among the wider Body of Christ at large, but in this day and age could we expect that they would carry the same authority as the early apostles? I think this is a very important thing to discuss.
It would be nice if you could say the guy was a false teacher because he uses the term Apostle, that would be quick and easy. However, life is never so simple.
So what I would think would be much more useful is to decide what are the key factors that convinced you that WL was or was not "the apostle"? Also, what was the order? For example, were suspect behaviors the first thing that caused you to question that followed by further examination of the teachings. Or was it first the teachings that caused you to reconsider and the behaviors only confirmed your feeling.
It seemed to me, that suspect behaviors (citing the appointment of PL as a more egregious example) were the first to alarm brothers. In the case of the Anaheim elders in the 80's, serious offenses towards the saints alerted them to problems. As they furthered their investigation, talking to others in the know, they were forced to examine teachings that enabled practices to go awry. Probably to most brothers it was cumulative, with both teachings and practices becoming suspect, once their "line in the sand" was crossed.
Even more concerning is why would a ministry make these outrageous claims of MOTA, "The" Apostle, or the acting god. What motives would cause them to push these assertions upon all the LC's. It was not just an effort to "help" know some newly "recovered" truths. I am convinced that these claims were only made to silence the saints while LSM discredited their own critics. These claims were internal to the Recovery. Externally they were denied.
In other words, once WL and LSM got exposed, on numerous occasions, for their unrighteous activities (think Daystar, secret bank accounts, abuse of churches, lording it over the flock, immoralities, etc.) they needed an extra set of "credentials" internally to maintain control over the LC's. In effect, these "credentials" become the same to their members as the "infallibility of the pope" doctrine became to Catholics.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 12:07 PM
It seemed to me, that suspect behaviors (citing the appointment of PL as a more egregious example) were the first to alarm brothers. In the case of the Anaheim elders in the 80's, serious offenses towards the saints alerted them to problems. As they furthered their investigation, talking to others in the know, they were forced to examine teachings that enabled practices to go awry. Probably to most brothers it was cumulative, with both teachings and practices becoming suspect, once their "line in the sand" was crossed.
Even more concerning is why would a ministry make these outrageous claims of MOTA, "The" Apostle, or the acting god. What motives would cause them to push these assertions upon all the LC's. It was not just an effort to "help" know some newly "recovered" truths. I am convinced that these claims were only made to silence the saints while LSM discredited their own critics. These claims were internal to the Recovery. Externally they were denied.
In other words, once WL and LSM got exposed, on numerous occasions, for their unrighteous activities (think Daystar, secret bank accounts, abuse of churches, lording it over the flock, immoralities, etc.) they needed an extra set of "credentials" internally to maintain control over the LC's. In effect, these "credentials" become the same to their members as the "infallibility of the pope" doctrine became to Catholics.
Is this correct?
1. Unrighteous Acts
2. Cover up, smear campaign
3. New teachings to justify cover up and smear campaign
4. Abuse of saints to keep them silent
5. New teachings to justify abuse of saints
6. Public Excommunication justified by bogus reasons.
So whereas a teaching may sound reasonable out of context, once the context of the unrighteous act, abuse of saints, or using it to justify excommunication is realized this was the way in which saints were roused from slumber?
The aversion to using any form of the word "apostle" is a holdover from the Reformation. "For hundreds of years Protestant churches have tried hard to not be Roman Catholic in terms of hierarchy and structure," says King. "But we still need leadership and structures. So the apostolic gift is still working—we just find new titles for it."
This may help to explain why the word "apostle" is mostly shunned today, in favor of the word "missionary." Rome has spoiled many N.T. terms, another of which is "church," which is why many prefer "assembly."
In the Pentecostal movement, like the Recovery, they have decided to "recover" the word "apostle," which makes it necessary for the body of Christ to be able to prove who is an apostle.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 12:13 PM
Of course apostles prophesy. They also teach and evangelize, but does one need to be an apostle to be a "teacher" or an "evangelist" or a "prophet"? I wouldn't think so. Let's not get too far off track here guys.
Again, I think we can agree that the original apostles were apostles because they were appointed directly by the Lord Jesus. We have the biblical record. We know what they taught. We know how conducted themselves. We also have a good record of what the 2nd generation of "apostles", teachers and scholars taught. There is a very good record of what was taught by the early "church fathers". I'm not saying that any one of these 2nd generation church leaders or church fathers were apostles per se, but we need to have some sort of baseline to work with. Then we need to take this baseline and try to transfer this as best we can to the realities that we face today.
The early apostles were not dealing with Christianity (or the world for that matter) as we know it today, so can we really expect modern "apostles" to function in the Body of Christ as the early apostles did? I wouldn't think so. Yes, I would expect that they should teach and preach the same things, and minister among the wider Body of Christ at large, but in this day and age could we expect that they would carry the same authority as the early apostles? I think this is a very important thing to discuss.
Igzy has done a nice job of presenting a definition for apostle, of showing that the work of an apostle is still being done today. He has also done a nice job of explaining the aversion to the term.
However, under every definition presented so far, by everyone on this site, the two witnesses in Revelation can be considered apostles. The fact that Revelation says they prophesied does not negate this.
Is this correct?
1. Unrighteous Acts
2. Cover up, smear campaign
3. New teachings to justify cover up and smear campaign
4. Abuse of saints to keep them silent
5. New teachings to justify abuse of saints
6. Public Excommunication justified by bogus reasons.
So whereas a teaching may sound reasonable out of context, once the context of the unrighteous act, abuse of saints, or using it to justify excommunication is realized this was the way in which saints were roused from slumber?
That would be correct!
One day years ago I had this sickening feeling within upon realizing that volumes of teachings from WL/LSM were simply justifications for "crimes."
Igzy has done a nice job of presenting a definition for apostle, of showing that the work of an apostle is still being done today. He has also done a nice job of explaining the aversion to the term.
However, under every definition presented so far, by everyone on this site, the two witnesses in Revelation can be considered apostles. The fact that Revelation says they prophesied does not negate this.
I would think that their apostleship would match that of Paul and Peter and John.
Are we supposed to consider the two witnesses to be "pictures, types, metaphors, etc?" I don't think so.Why do you think not? I'm not saying they are not literal. But there is evidence that the whole thing is pictures, types, and metaphors.
How about when they "prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days?" That is not metaphorical either.Again, why not? A week is not a 7 days. 7 weeks is not 49 days. What makes 1,230 literal, but 49 not?
"Sackcloth" is a sign, as are "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks."Is sackcloth a sign? It was literal in its use in OT times. What makes it a sign now?
I must admit that I probably agree that it is a sign. Or a picture. Or part of a metaphor. Why are other potentially literal items not signs, pictures, or metaphors?
As to whether the "fire that proceedeth out of their mouth" is a sign or not is uncertain. What should be taken literally is that there will be two witnesses for over three years who possess extraordinary powers. This part is not a sign.Again. Why? Because we can create a structure in which it makes sense? What if that is not God's structure?
This is a prophecy so that the people of God will know when the time comes.But I thought that the people of God get raptured. If that is the case, why do they care? (Don't rush to answer this one. I must admit that I have some serious problems with much of the dispensational/rapture theology. I'm not sure who will or won't be around to care.)
When their testimony is completed, they will be killed somewhat near where the Lord was crucified. This is not a sign. This is a prophecy that will definitely come to pass.And every prophecy that has ever come to pass was, upon hindsight, found to read literally? Actually, fairly few are that direct. There is something that fits. And once the real deal comes, then you understand it. But if it was so obvious, then they would have been looking for a baby born in Bethlehem that would be the Messiah. But the religious know-it-alls had no clue. It was not because the prophecy had been forgotten. It was that it was not understood. It was not obvious before it came to be. And the birth of a child would not prove it true. The results of a life born in Bethlehem would.
We can argue forever about how to read the prophecies in Revelation. If we are around to see it play out, then we will actually realize the meaning of them. And we may be very surprised as to what was pretty straight forward and what was not. There may be little about a literal 10-headed/horned (whatever) beast that we now want to call the European Union. A couple of centuries ago there was something else that was presumed to be the precursor of the beast. And the final battle may not actually be in the literal Kidron Valley. Or the Mount of Olives might not actually split open to save the Jews. But those things stand for something. Something that should keep you watching. And virtually every generation from the first until now had something to watch for. And I'm not suggesting that it is a hoax of generalities to keep us toeing the line. It is real. But what is literal may not look anything like what we are expecting. Yet if we are here to see it, I expect we will understand it.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 12:39 PM
That would be correct!
One day years ago I had this sickening feeling within upon realizing that volumes of teachings from WL/LSM were simply justifications for "crimes."
I think there may be more to it than that.
The Lord said "the hireling careth not for the sheep but when the wolf comes"
1. I think in the abuse, cover up, smear campaign, and justification there is evidence of a lack of concern for the sheep. So evidence that someone does not care for the sheep is clearly evidence that they are a hireling, whereas someone who is willing to risk his life for the sheep would be evidence of being one with the Lord. So the BBs rubber stamp approach is evidence that they are hirelings.
2. There are "wolves". Clearly, the goal of the wolf is to devour the sheep. So among the false prophets and false apostles evidence that the person is "devouring" the sheep as in Daystar, or the PL travesty, etc would be evidence of the person being a wolf. Based on this I would say that there is evidence that WL was a wolf. To me speaking Biblical truths is not evidence of either side. Satan can appear as an angel of light. Standing up to the wolves as JI and others did is evidence that these are genuine shepherds of the sheep, whereas the quarantine of TC, and covering the eyes concerning PL and JI is evidence of hirelings.
I think there may be more to it than that.
The Lord said "the hireling careth not for the sheep but when the wolf comes"
1. I think in the abuse, cover up, smear campaign, and justification there is evidence of a lack of concern for the sheep. So evidence that someone does not care for the sheep is clearly evidence that they are a hireling, whereas someone who is willing to risk his life for the sheep would be evidence of being one with the Lord. So the BBs rubber stamp approach is evidence that they are hirelings.
2. There are "wolves". Clearly, the goal of the wolf is to devour the sheep. So among the false prophets and false apostles evidence that the person is "devouring" the sheep as in Daystar, or the PL travesty, etc would be evidence of the person being a wolf. Based on this I would say that there is evidence that WL was a wolf. To me speaking Biblical truths is not evidence of either side. Satan can appear as an angel of light. Standing up to the wolves as JI and others did is evidence that these are genuine shepherds of the sheep, whereas the quarantine of TC, and covering the eyes concerning PL and JI is evidence of hirelings.
Some posters feel JI was a hireling because he left.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 12:47 PM
Some posters feel JI was a hireling because he left.
I would give that more credence if he left quietly.
Why do you think not? I'm not saying they are not literal. But there is evidence that the whole thing is pictures, types, and metaphors.
Not a chance, that would be a worthless book.
Read Revelations. Some of the signs are interpreted for us in v1.20.
v1.1 says, "show to His slaves what must swiftly take place, and He made it known by signs." If the whole thing is taken metaphorically, what will be the basis for the interpretation? For example, the lampstand is a sign, the church is not. But if the church is also a metaphor, what basis for interpretation can possibly exist?
Some posters feel JI was a hireling because he left.
I should correct this. That wasn't exactly correct.
The poster felt that some GLA leaders, many of whom I knew personally, who left quietly after being much abused by TC, were thus "hirelings."
I am still undecided.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 02:32 PM
I should correct this. That wasn't exactly correct.
The poster felt that some GLA leaders, many of whom I knew personally, who left quietly after being much abused by TC, were thus "hirelings."
I am still undecided.
To me, ever since the days of George Washington you know that it is better to live again to fight another day. Hit and run is better than hit and get squashed.
MacArthur was brilliant in retreat as well as in attack.
King David is another great example.
There are many ways to skin a cat. I don't stand with running and hiding, but to provide a thorough account and at the same time take a stand that eliminates any thought of rebellion or self serving may have been the best way to go.
To me, ever since the days of George Washington you know that it is better to live again to fight another day. Hit and run is better than hit and get squashed.
MacArthur was brilliant in retreat as well as in attack.
King David is another great example.
There are many ways to skin a cat. I don't stand with running and hiding, but to provide a thorough account and at the same time take a stand that eliminates any thought of rebellion or self serving may have been the best way to go.
I should say that those who left did talk privately to those who asked. I have not found anything that was written, however. In this regard, related to all the storms that originated in Anaheim, TC used to boast that no brother under his care ever became a problem to the Recovery.
If a leader needs his former workers to be silent at their departure, then he is not beyond reproach, and must have much to hide. There is no record in the N.T. of Paul abusing his co-workers, so LC leaders who abuse one another are without Biblical support. Thus they desire departing workers to maintain "radio silence" at all costs.
ZNPaaneah
08-31-2011, 02:53 PM
I should say that those who left did talk privately to those who asked. I have not found anything that was written, however. In this regard, related to all the storms that originated in Anaheim, TC used to boast that no brother under his care ever became a problem to the Recovery.
If a leader needs his former workers to be silent at their departure, then he is not beyond reproach, and must have much to hide. There is no record in the N.T. of Paul abusing his co-workers, so LC leaders who abuse one another are without Biblical support. Thus they desire departing workers to maintain "radio silence" at all costs.
An elder should be beyond reproach, therefore you don't need to worry about someone "making trouble".
Second, an accusation against an elder should not be heard unless by 2 or 3 credible witnesses. This forum has provided that and more. So if the LRC refuses to hear they have an issue with the Lord Jesus. It is not rebellion to bring an accusation against an elder, if done properly and according to the scripture.
Third, it is perfectly reasonable to examine a witness. You might be interested in motive or credibility issues. Therefore, taking a stand outside of the LRC where you have nothing to gain other than standing for the truth in love may be where the Lord has led you.
Fourth, many of the witnesses on this forum are elders. JI is merely one example. Therefore they also should be afforded the same standard. I think it is fair to consider WL and KR as credible witnesses, but on the other hand I think it is equally fair to consider JI, JS, and BM credible witnesses.
But even if I agree with everything you say and all of your reasons and concerns, from our own experience we know that it is a futile exercise to try and get some written agreement about the use of the word.
I wasn't literally asking for a written agreement. I was rhetorically reinforcing why we shouldn't use the title apostle.
First, WL used many terms, not merely "the apostle" (wise master builder, MOTA, etc).
Second, the LRC used a whole teaching that made them feel they were superior to the rest of Christians because they understood that Apostles were not once for all. Unless their is a clear teaching in the NT (as their is concerning the 7th day adventist) your convention to steer clear of the term will be meaningless in real applications.
It won't be meaningless if someone takes the advice. It's not a matter of black-and-white proof. It's a matter of persuading people with wisdom. Reasonable people get it. It's the fringes that never do. But it is possible to reduce the number of potential people on the fringe.
Do you need an apostle like Paul now? Do we need to see God's awesome power demonstrated to believe in him? I think the answer to both is "no." We believe. We know. A miracle will get us too caught up in miracles — like the Corinthians. Much better to take the faith that we have and live the life that Jesus commanded. Prove that God is by the fact that we now live righteously.
My current "apostolic baseline" is what I quoted earlier from Acts 2, Hebrews 2, and 2 Corinthians 12.
Signs
Wonders
Miracles
Now, 2 caveats quickly spring to mind. First, doing anything in a showy way, to display something before others, is verboten. The devil is to crafty and insinuating.
No, work in a hidden way. Like Jesus, who would often drive the crowds away (and even most of the 12) and work with just a few. Work before God.
Second, I relate "Signs, wonders, and miracles" to the word "power", as in, "You have a little power and have not denied my name." That power must be evident in the believer, and will be amplified in God's special "sent ones", whether we term them messengers or apostles or prophets or whatnot.
This power need not be to lengthen someone's leg, or straighten someone's features (though it may), or to cause it not to rain for three years (though it may), but rather the power to change people's lives. Those who wept will be comforted, those who sighed will rejoice. Those in the darkness of despair will sense light and hope, and those in the prison of "me, me, me" will sense how much God loves everybody else (imagine that!). There are great works of power waiting to be done by us all, which in our own small way may be "signs, wonders, and miracles".
Lee was, at heart, a "bible expositor", not a prophet or apostle. He liked to talk about the Bible. That is my impression. And he arguably changed lives, including mine.
But again, two caveats come to mind for "Lee the Bible expositor". First, his expositions were riddled with subjectivity, partiality, bias, error, and cant (as are most, if not all of our efforts). He was no all-seeing "oracle". To paint him (or anyone) as such quickly evokes the great scene in the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain!"
Second, Lee should probably disqualified from any "higher office" in our estimation, like an apostle or prophet, by the fact that he did, in fact, covet people's gold and silver (Acts 20:33). I am thinking specifically of the Daystar fiasco. There may be other instances, but Daystar alone is enough. We have enough evidence here to try the claims of those who claim "Lee the apostle", and find them to be false.
I think there may be more to it than that.
The Lord said "the hireling careth not for the sheep but when the wolf comes"
1. I think in the abuse, cover up, smear campaign, and justification there is evidence of a lack of concern for the sheep. So evidence that someone does not care for the sheep is clearly evidence that they are a hireling, whereas someone who is willing to risk his life for the sheep would be evidence of being one with the Lord. So the BBs rubber stamp approach is evidence that they are hirelings.
2. There are "wolves". Clearly, the goal of the wolf is to devour the sheep. So among the false prophets and false apostles evidence that the person is "devouring" the sheep as in Daystar, or the PL travesty, etc would be evidence of the person being a wolf. Based on this I would say that there is evidence that WL was a wolf. To me speaking Biblical truths is not evidence of either side. Satan can appear as an angel of light. Standing up to the wolves as JI and others did is evidence that these are genuine shepherds of the sheep, whereas the quarantine of TC, and covering the eyes concerning PL and JI is evidence of hirelings.
Paul's warning to the Ephesian elders has been quite helpful to me. He cited two types of dangers in addition to that of the "hirelings."
Acts 20.29-30 I know after my departure, fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And from among you yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.
Most LCers will not accept that WL/LSM are wolves in sheep's clothing, but when considering all of LSM's wild claims about WL, during the many times of coercion surrounding the New Way, in light of Paul's warning here, they have to stop and think.
One factor in the discussion on apostles that has been in my mind but not brought up is Paul's comment about how "all of Asia" had left him.
I somehow sense that much of the discussion here would assume that he should start excommunicating those who lead in those churches. But he doesn't even suggest that their charters be rejected, or that someone else go and start new churches there so that Paul's newly appointed elders could reign.
This seems to put a different status on the apostles. They were gifts to the establishment of the churches. They were not authoritarian leaders of those churches or "super elders." Even Paul's letter to Corinth in which he directs them concerning the man having an affair with his stepmother does not insist that they do it "or else." He says they should. He says if he were there he would. But he is not and all he can do is give advice.
It is a gift to them. They are free to leave the package unopened. Bad choice, but an option.
ZNPaaneah
09-01-2011, 07:33 AM
Yes, along those lines the Lord said "call no man your father" because God is your father.
Likewise I have considered that you should call no man "The Apostle" because the Lord Jesus is "the Apostle". Even at the time of Paul he wasn't "the" Apostle.
Ultimately the authority was not with James or Peter or Paul. It was with the Lord.
Yes, along those lines the Lord said "call no man your father" because God is your father.
Likewise I have considered that you should call no man "The Apostle" because the Lord Jesus is "the Apostle". Even at the time of Paul he wasn't "the" Apostle.
Ultimately the authority was not with James or Peter or Paul. It was with the Lord.
Great point about calling any man "The ......."
In church history, Rome latched onto Peter as "The" first great apostle. Probably in reaction to this, Protestants favored Paul, with the exclusive wing extolling Paul as "The Apostle," and "The MOTA." What somewhat sounded benign concerning Peter and Paul actually laid the groundwork for modern day leaders to fill their shoes. WL elevated Paul by accentuating Peter's failures. Since Luke wrote Acts, early church history is biased in Paul's favor.
Paul told us plainly that he was "less than the least," and constantly pointed the church to Christ the Head. I believe Christians on their own reading the Bible would not elevate one minister over another, and Corinth was a constant warning regarding this. It was WL and his loyal lackeys who thrust these teachings upon the LC's, with the motives of grandeur and power. Things the Bible constantly warned us against.
There are "wolves". Clearly, the goal of the wolf is to devour the sheep. So among the false prophets and false apostles evidence that the person is "devouring" the sheep as in Daystar, or the PL travesty, etc would be evidence of the person being a wolf. Based on this I would say that there is evidence that WL was a wolf.
Lee was a second- or third-rate Bible expositor, when compared to Origen and Erasmus. But he was certainly a better Bible expositor than I, and many pastors and reverends out there tending to the flock.
The problem with Lee was that he was held up as more than merely a Bible expositor. He was, variously, a "seer" or "oracle", conveying the depths of God's heart, and God's plan, to we dull and sightless ones. He was God's "deputy authority", able to raise up and depose various underlings, ("elders and co-workers") who in turn were to shepherd the flock. He was the "apostle of the age", able to guide the whole body of Christ on the earth through organizing various "moves of the Lord". And so forth.
So if we try him and find him false (Daystar, Philip Lee), then yes, he is a wolf. A wolf is a sheep who oversteps his allotted portion and begins to bite and devour the other sheep (I think of verse 6 of Jude, with angels who didn't stay in their allotted place but overstepped their position). Better to be a bible expositor who in hindsight is arguably a prophet, oracle, or apostle, than a supposedly super apostle who was in fact just a second-rate bible expositor.
On a related note (sheep, wolves, etc) it struck me today that sheep pens, though somewhat confining, and probably boring (lacking lush green grass and smoothly flowing rivers and mountain vistas and such), are at least safe. If Jesus leads you out of the sheep fold, and brings you to green pastures and beside still waters, fine. You feast and remain safe. But the wolf will also try to lure you out. He will get you to leave the fold, and then he will devour you.
In the 1970s there was quite a bit of "non-traditional" christianity going on, and suddenly it dawned on the flock that some of these leaders, who offered "different" and "fresh" teachings, were actually wolves. I am thinking of ones like Jim Jones, and David Moses Berg. Jim Jones had been a Methodist pastor. Berg was I think from the Christian and Misssionary Alliance. They stressed "ignored Bible truths" to their audience, and led their flocks outside the sheep pen, and then they devoured them.
With Philip Lee and Daystar, I am beginning to suspect that Lee was really a wolf.
Yes, along those lines the Lord said "call no man your father" because God is your father.
Likewise I have considered that you should call no man "The Apostle" because the Lord Jesus is "the Apostle". Even at the time of Paul he wasn't "the" Apostle.
Ultimately the authority was not with James or Peter or Paul. It was with the Lord.
That was my point when I recently quoted Hebrews chapter one. Jesus is the High Priest; Jesus is the Mouthpiece of God; Jesus is God's Oracle; Jesus is God's Deputy Authority; Jesus is the Apostle of the Age; Jesus is the Minister of the New Covenant. God has spoken in many ways in the past, and today He is speaking to us in His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, and through whom He has made all things.
Anyone who becomes the subject of our attention as the conduit of God's speaking has arguably diverted us from our path. There is only one (speaking) Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. And every single one of us is, or can be, His speaking "deputies". Some of us have more capacity and so forth, but if their gifts (i.e. "ministries") become our focus then we have mis-aimed.
Lee was a second- or third-rate Bible expositor, when compared to Origen and Erasmus. But he was certainly a better Bible expositor than I, and many pastors and reverends out there tending to the flock.Despite the language issues, and more correctly, the difficulty in understanding him through his accent at times, he was a fairly charismatic speaker. He had a learned manner with respect to so much of the Bible. But even without Daystar and his sons, the way he took and manhandled scripture does not allow me to treat him as so great a Bible expositor relative to the average small-church pastor. And maybe even a bunch of us, including you.
My problem with giving him any significant marks in Bible exposition is that it would seem that he went at it with a goal to get a result, therefore (in hindsight) almost everything he said needed more than casual checking. His methods of Bible exposition seem too much like setting up experiments to prove or disprove something, then setting out to find only positive results, even by reinterpreting negative results.
I suspect that the average small-congregation pastor at least relies on many sources including sound commentaries and other writings. While Lee obviously did not make everything up, what he did get from others did not often retain its original integrity.
But then the very fact of the Daystar and Philip Lee fiascoes (not to mention those going back to Taipei) suggests that his skills at Bible exposition should be deemed irrelevant and he be cast aside as a wolf. As someone trying to feed his belly at the expense of the flock. So even if a whole lot of what he said was true, and even some of it profound, he loses credibility and should not even be consulted.
My problem with giving [Lee] any significant marks in Bible exposition is that it would seem that he went at it with a goal to get a result, therefore (in hindsight) almost everything he said needed more than casual checking. His methods of Bible exposition seem too much like setting up experiments to prove or disprove something, then setting out to find only positive results, even by reinterpreting negative results.
To some extent we all do this; we find some verses which support our current fancy, and wave them in the air to show our theory/practice/obsession/interpretation is "biblical". All other biblical references which don't support our theory are, of course, ignored.
To get back to the subject of "apostles"... I was looking at what Paul considered as "marks of the apostles", in 2 Corinthians 12:12
NIV: "I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles."
I don't think Paul is being sarcastic here, even though he has just finished mentioning the 'super-apostles'...
Now, the LSM interpretation is that since there were apostles delineated in Ephesians 4:11 (and elsewhere) and it doesn't say that they were to be phased out, then the office of apostle must continue after Paul, John, Peter et al. There should be apostles (somewhere) today. Logical.
Then, when you ask them about the marks of a true apostle, about signs and wonders and miracles, they say, "Well, that was just for the first century. The age of miracles is over." Also logical.
So one age, "The age of the apostles" is not over, because the Bible doesn't indicate that it was supposed to terminate.
And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.
Got it? It's quite simple, really.
awareness
09-06-2011, 08:08 AM
And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.
Got it? It's quite simple, really.It is simple. If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.
Got it? It's quite simple, really.
It seems to me that only Paul emphasized his Apostleship. I don't remember any of the others calling themselves like "Peter an Apostle." I believe the reason for this was the ongoing efforts of the Jews to discredit him. Still Paul never said he was the MOTA, or The Apostle. This tremendous leap of credential facilitated much corruption in the Recovery.
I remember hearing for years how the Recovery was built upon a "man for every age." This distorted view of church history has damaged all those who received it. Paul said "all are yours." He also said that those who are "of men" are fleshly. It just amazes me that we studied those verses so many time, and never made the "connection."
I remember hearing for years how the Recovery was built upon a "man for every age." .... It just amazes me that we studied those verses so many time, and never made the "connection."
I hope that I am clear that I am not presenting some alternative "truth" to the LSM/BBs, but rather attempting to show how our thinking can impinge upon our ability to make connections in the written word. We ignore what is convenient, and trumpet the rest.
I am glad for all the points of view out there. I hold up what is interesting and useful to me, but (hopefully) realize that my points are not necessarily more valid than others'.
"In the counsel of many is safety"... from Solomon the wise.
It is simple. If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.
I'm with you on this one, Harold. 2 Cor 12:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%2012:12&version=NASB).
If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.
And if the supposed apostle is deceased, bring a cadaver and lay it on his/her grave, and see if it comes back to life. I am thinking of the case of Elisha's tomb in 2 Kings 13:20,21.
awareness
09-06-2011, 12:32 PM
And if the supposed apostle is deceased, bring a cadaver and lay it on his/her grave, and see if it comes back to life. I am thinking of the case of Elisha's tomb in 2 Kings 13:20,21.I wonder if it would work on Witness Lees' grave??? So we can finally be completely done with his claim to apostlehood.
Someone take their dead cat or dog to his grave, just to put it to rest once and for all, or vindicate Lee's claim as the one and only apostle on this earth in this age. Depending, of course, if the cat or dog comes to life, or remains dead.
So one age, "The age of the apostles" is not over, because the Bible doesn't indicate that it was supposed to terminate.
And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.
Got it? It's quite simple, really.
:lol: :rolleyes:
I'm with you on this one, Harold. 2 Cor 12:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%2012:12&version=NASB).
Did Apostle Paul lose his powers in II Tim 4.20b?
Perhaps Paul was affected by Kryptonite in the end?
awareness
09-06-2011, 08:27 PM
Did Apostle Paul lose his powers in II Tim 4.20b?
Perhaps Paul was affected by Kryptonite in the end?That's when he was Clark Kent. He said he was all things to all people....
Did Apostle Paul lose his powers in II Tim 4.20b?
Perhaps Paul was affected by Kryptonite in the end?
Signs and wonders were to attest to apostleship, not to fix up whomever happened to be sick. Even Superman didn't save everyone.
It is simple. If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.
Signs and wonders were to attest to apostleship, not to fix up whomever happened to be sick. Even Superman didn't save everyone.
Then why be so supportive if this prior, extremely degrading post?
This is your second "apostolic flip-flop" that has thrown me for a loop.
Not to worry, liotta is quick to point out every time I appear to "ride my see-saw." Ooops, there I go again, I'm turning blue.
Then why be so supportive if this prior, extremely degrading post?
This is your second "apostolic flip-flop" that has thrown me for a loop.
Not to worry, liotta is quick to point out every time I appear to "ride my see-saw." Ooops, there I go again, I'm turning blue.
Awareness' point was rhetoric hyperbole, not to be taken literally. His point was if someone claims to be an apostle, ask them to do a miracle. If they can't, ignore their claim. I agree with that. Tell them to put up or shut up.
That doesn't mean there isn't apostolic-like work being done these days. It just means that someone who claims to be an apostle these days is looking for more than doing a work. He's looking for recognition and a following. If he wants me to follow him he'd better produce the goods.
I can't recall any significant work being done in the last 1800 years by anyone who claimed to be an apostle. All the ones I know of turned out to be vastly overrated, to say the least.
awareness
09-07-2011, 10:59 AM
That doesn't mean there isn't apostolic-like work being done these days. It just means that someone who claims to be an apostle these days is looking for more than doing a work. He's looking for recognition and a following.Interestingly the Dominionists, The New Apostolic Reformation Movement, behind the religious right running for president these days, claim to be apostles and prophets.
Awareness' point was rhetoric hyperbole, not to be taken literally. His point was if someone claims to be an apostle, ask them to do a miracle. If they can't, ignore their claim. I agree with that. Tell them to put up or shut up.
And that's my point. Thank you for spelling it out so succinctly.
Not only would awareness's "test" cause every true apostle to flunk, but even our Heavenly Apostle would flunk that test. While on earth, the Jews attempted to "play" the Lord on numerous occasions, asking for signs and wonders. Even the Roman guards taunted Him saying, "play the prophet." He did nothing to oblige them. He appeared to them as totally incompetent, like some dumb sheep headed for slaughter. He never came to this earth to be a miracle worker.
Our Lord Jesus refused to be the circus performer that you and awareness seem to desire.
awareness
09-07-2011, 12:10 PM
And that's my point. Thank you for spelling it out so succinctly.
Not only would awareness's "test" cause every true apostle to flunk, but even our Heavenly Apostle would flunk that test. While on earth, the Jews attempted to "play" the Lord on numerous occasions, asking for signs and wonders. Even the Roman guards taunted Him saying, "play the prophet." He did nothing to oblige them. He appeared to them as totally incompetent, like some dumb sheep headed for slaughter. He never came to this earth to be a miracle worker.
Our Lord Jesus refused to be the circus performer that you and awareness seem to desire.But we're not talking about Jesus. We're talking about those who claim to be apostles today. And it's no skin of my nose if you just take their claims willy-nilly. So have at it. Hook up to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that call themselves apostles. Hook up with the dominionists if you like ... they claim to be apostles....
ZNPaaneah
09-07-2011, 12:25 PM
Then why be so supportive if this prior, extremely degrading post?
This is your second "apostolic flip-flop" that has thrown me for a loop.
Not to worry, liotta is quick to point out every time I appear to "ride my see-saw." Ooops, there I go again, I'm turning blue.
I also did a double take with that recent post.
ZNPaaneah
09-07-2011, 12:27 PM
Interestingly the Dominionists, The New Apostolic Reformation Movement, behind the religious right running for president these days, claim to be apostles and prophets.
So if they can pull of a miracle, like pay off the US debt, then you'd vote for them?
ZNPaaneah
09-07-2011, 12:30 PM
But we're not talking about Jesus. We're talking about those who claim to be apostles today. And it's no skin of my nose if you just take their claims willy-nilly. So have at it. Hook up to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that call themselves apostles. Hook up with the dominionists if you like ... they claim to be apostles....
Wouldn't it be a better test to see if they express Jesus? After all, how do we know that WL was or was not the MOTA? Isn't it because of his sins and behavior that fell short of the glory of God? Trying to use miracles would be extremely impractical
But we're not talking about Jesus. We're talking about those who claim to be apostles today. And it's no skin of my nose if you just take their claims willy-nilly. So have at it.
But are you not conjuring up bogus tests for the apostles that even Jesus or Paul or Peter could pass?
Who is taking whose claims willy-nilly? Seriously now, many of your posts do border on the outrageous. Are you now speaking "rhetoric hyperbole" as Igzy has claimed? Call me back when you guys stop playing games. If only awareness proposed those "crazy cemetery tests," I would guess it was just "rhetoric hyperbole," but when Igzy jumped in too, I figured you guys weren't clowning around.
Please do tell me ahead of time when I am supposed to take any of your posts seriously. The other posters need to know too. You both have hundreds of posts. Are they all "rhetoric hyperbole?" Which of your other posts should be ignored due to "rhetoric hyperbole?" Can you place an asterisk after them to code them for the reader? *
And that's my point. Thank you for spelling it out so succinctly.
Not only would awareness's "test" cause every true apostle to flunk, but even our Heavenly Apostle would flunk that test. While on earth, the Jews attempted to "play" the Lord on numerous occasions, asking for signs and wonders. Even the Roman guards taunted Him saying, "play the prophet." He did nothing to oblige them. He appeared to them as totally incompetent, like some dumb sheep headed for slaughter. He never came to this earth to be a miracle worker.
Our Lord Jesus refused to be the circus performer that you and awareness seem to desire.
When I said "ask them to do a miracle" I was humorously making the point to check on whether the miraculous signs of a apostle have accompanied their ministries.
Obviously, asking them to do a sign on the spot was not my point. You should have realized that. But I guess you figure I'm as dumb as the point you thought I made.
So if they can pull of a miracle, like pay off the US debt, then you'd vote for them?
Or better yet, just create a few private sector jobs! :rollingeyesfrown:
When I said "ask them to do a miracle" I was humorously making the point to check on whether the miraculous signs of a apostle have accompanied their ministries.
Obviously, asking them to do a sign on the spot was not my point. You should have realized that. But I guess you figure I'm as dumb as the point you thought I made.
Or perhaps I was just dumb enough to think you were serious about discussing the apostles. My bad. My dumb.
Or perhaps I was just dumb enough to think you were serious about discussing the apostles. My bad. My dumb.
I was seriously discussing them. Are you saying someone can't use humor to make a serious point? Even Jesus did that.
Here's the thing. Some things, like modern day people claiming to be apostles, deserve some derision. That calls for humor.
But I shouldn't have to explain that, either.
Let me make the point more clearly. If someone claims to be an apostle, ask him to tell you his track record of signs and miracles. Both Jesus and Paul did this (Luke 7:22-23; 2 Cor 12:12). If he can't produce one, say thank you very much but I'm not convinced you are what you claim to be.
Let me make the point more clearly. If someone claims to be an apostle, ask him to tell you his track record of signs and miracles. Both Jesus and Paul did this (Luke 7:22-23; 2 Cor 12:12). If he can't produce one, say thank you very much but I'm not convinced you are what you claim to be.
Ohio, if you found my characterizations of your argument as "extremely degrading", I apologize. I didn't think the argument was very strong; forgive me if I was unduly dismissive of it, and you.
I agree with Igzy; you have Peter speaking in Acts chapter 2,verse 22“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."
You have Paul's "marks of an apostle" in 2 Corinthians 12.
You have Hebrews chapter 2:4 saying that the eyewitnesses of Jesus also were accompanied by signs, wonders and miracles.
Then suddenly from one verse, 2 Timothy 4:20, we have the end of works of power? Just like that? Somehow God just turned off the spigot and we found ourselves with apostles, but minus works? I do not think so.
I was poking fun; I was trying to include all of us. I think we all set up arguments in our minds of what makes sense, of "the way things are", and then we cut and paste the incoming data (like the Bible) to fit our concepts. I tried to be clear that we all do this. I apologize if in including you & ZNP (because I include everyone) in such a characterization it seems insulting or demeaning.
But Peter and the author of Hebrews and Paul all said that God's demonstration of works of power was worth our consideration. To just dismiss all that evidence without some basis beyond 2 Tim 4:20 seems rather presumptive.
awareness
09-07-2011, 02:04 PM
Let me make the point more clearly. If someone claims to be an apostle, ask him to tell you his track record of signs and miracles. Both Jesus and Paul did this (Luke 7:22-23; 2 Cor 12:12). If he can't produce one, say thank you very much but I'm not convinced you are what you claim to be.Better yet doubt them right off the bat. I don't even know if I'd trust their signs ans miracles. I'd call Jame Randi on them to prove their signs and miracles isn't some kind of stage magic.
Let me make the point more clearly. If someone claims to be an apostle, ask him to tell you his track record of signs and miracles. Both Jesus and Paul did this (Luke 7:22-23; 2 Cor 12:12).
I agree with this. The verses alone are compelling. To discount the apostleship of all, except for the original "13," is a convenient sell. Most protestant evangelicals have taken this stance, as you have so well noted in a prior post.
If he can't produce one, say thank you very much but I'm not convinced you are what you claim to be.This presents a problem to me, and try to hear me out since I am no longer speaking in context of the LC. Many contemporaries have made these claims and others truly believe them. If it is just about so-called signs and wonders and healings, then numerous apostles exist today. Some even claim to be apostles. I'm not sure of their criteria, but they make the claim nevertheless.
Today some stats list Pentecostals as roughly 50% of genuine evangelical Christians. To deny all modern day miracles and healings is to deny the Spirit Himself. But ... it is also undeniable that many Pentecostals want there to be more miracles than there really are. Some Pentecostal ministers love to sensationalize every healing and "almost" healing for personal gain. It is a "culture" that few within the movement can see through. To attempt to openly "examine" some ministers' claims is met with rejection, and accusations of faithlessness. The loyal supporters view such "examination" as persecution.
I spent some time with a precious older couple nearby me. They are convinced that Todd Bentley's Lakeland movement was genuinely of the Lord. Perhaps that's just what they want to believe, but there's no dissuading them. If it were just lifelong Pentecostals that clung to this, I might not be concerned, but since the demise of the GLA LC's, many former members have been enamored by "what they have been missing" all these years.
This is why I reject flippant comments. I need to equip myself with better information. Too bad the "tests" used by Ephesus were not recorded. Paul's tests in 2 Cor 12.12 may be duplicated by some, at least their supporters claim to have "proof." WL himself also testified of visions and works of power. All of them will testify of exceeding trials and tribulations which have wrought a proven ministry.
ZNPaaneah
09-07-2011, 03:30 PM
I apologize if in including you & ZNP (because I include everyone) in such a characterization it seems insulting or demeaning.
Did I miss something? Why am I being included in this?
Did I miss something? Why am I being included in this?
He's apologizing. Just accept it. Things like this don't happen every day. :)
I agree with this. The verses alone are compelling. To discount the apostleship of all, except for the original "13," is a convenient sell. Most protestant evangelicals have taken this stance, as you have so well noted in a prior post.
The discounting is not without basis. It's a compelling biblical argument as far as I can see.
Note discount doesn't mean deny. It just means the extent of the apostleship is more modest.
This presents a problem to me, and try to hear me out since I am no longer speaking in context of the LC. Many contemporaries have made these claims and others truly believe them. If it is just about so-called signs and wonders and healings, then numerous apostles exist today. Some even claim to be apostles. I'm not sure of their criteria, but they make the claim nevertheless.
Today some stats list Pentecostals as roughly 50% of genuine evangelical Christians. To deny all modern day miracles and healings is to deny the Spirit Himself. But ... it is also undeniable that many Pentecostals want there to be more miracles than there really are. Some Pentecostal ministers love to sensationalize every healing and "almost" healing for personal gain. It is a "culture" that few within the movement can see through. To attempt to openly "examine" some ministers' claims is met with rejection, and accusations of faithlessness. The loyal supporters view such "examination" as persecution.
I spent some time with a precious older couple nearby me. They are convinced that Todd Bentley's Lakeland movement was genuinely of the Lord. Perhaps that's just what they want to believe, but there's no dissuading them. If it were just lifelong Pentecostals that clung to this, I might not be concerned, but since the demise of the GLA LC's, many former members have been enamored by "what they have been missing" all these years.
This is why I reject flippant comments. I need to equip myself with better information. Too bad the "tests" used by Ephesus were not recorded. Paul's tests in 2 Cor 12.12 may be duplicated by some, at least their supporters claim to have "proof." WL himself also testified of visions and works of power. All of them will testify of exceeding trials and tribulations which have wrought a proven ministry.
My point was that if you ask for a record of signs and wonders that eliminates the bulk of the field right off the bat. There is other criteria as well that can be applied to the remainder.
I really don't understand what belief you are actually advocating. Are you saying we should leave the door open for some apostle with the authority of Peter or Paul's stature to come along, just in case he does? Or are you just saying it should be okay to call someone an apostle today? Or are you saying anyone with an apostolic-like gift should call himself an apostle and we should too, and we're not being biblical if we don't? What exactly would you like people to believe?
ZNPaaneah
09-07-2011, 03:43 PM
The discounting is not without basis. It's a compelling biblical argument as far as I can see.
My point was that if you ask for a record of signs and wonders that eliminates the bulk of the field right off the bat. There is other criteria as well that can be applied to the remainder.
I really don't understand what belief you are actually advocating. Are you saying we should leave the door open for some apostle with the authority of Peter or Paul's stature to come along, just in case he does? Or are you just saying it should be okay to call someone an apostle today? Or are you saying anyone with an apostolic-like gift should call himself an apostle and is not being biblical if he doesn't? What exactly would you like people to believe?
I think this is a very poor approach. I don't disagree that the signs of an apostle would include miracles. I also don't disagree with Awareness that anyone who puts his signs and miracles on his resume is probably a fraud. I have experienced miracles, they are very private, and they are not something you want to go public with. I think that the miracles that Jesus did were almost always intended to be somewhat private. The reason is simple, if you turn it into a circus you bring in a very ugly spirit. "Seeing" some miracle done on stage does absolutely nothing for me and never impresses me that this person is anything more than a fraud. But when you experience a miracle first hand, that is different. You know it was an answered prayer.
Obviously, this discussion is really about frauds and liars. Those that pretend to be apostles, but aren't. I think if someone is a fraud or a liar, it will be easy to prove and realize for anyone who genuinely wants to know the truth. Frauds and liars appeal to greed and lust. Look at the fruit of the ministry, are they causing people to walk in the way of the Lord or are they tickling their ears and encouraging greed and lust?
The discussion isn't just about liars and frauds. The discussion is more generally about people who claim apostleship but don't really have it. These people aren't necessarily frauds, they could just be self-deceived. Like Herbert Armstrong, for example. They are more trouble than flat-out frauds because they seem to be doing so many good things.
As for your claim of a poor approach, if Paul said signs and wonders were the sign of apostleship, just how does one validate apostleship, without having some proof of signs and wonders? I'm not suggesting the "apostle" has to pull a rabbit out of his hat every time someone wants proof. But there should be some verifiable, reliable testimony and witness record of his gifting. This is what Jesus and the apostles established by various and multiple witnesses to signs.
The changing of water into wine at a wedding, the feeding of thousands were all very public miracles which were meant to testify that Jesus was God's Annointed. Nothing private about them. They were meant to be seen by many and broadcast to many. Also, the resurrection. Hundreds saw him.
There are miracles which are just miracles, and miracles which are meant to be public signs. We are talking about the latter.
ZNPaaneah
09-07-2011, 05:41 PM
The changing of water into wine at a wedding, the feeding of thousands were all very public miracles which were meant to testify that Jesus was God's Annointed. Nothing private about them. They were meant to be seen by many and broadcast to many. Also, the resurrection. Hundreds saw him.
There are miracles which are just miracles, and miracles which are meant to be public signs. We are talking about the latter.
Interesting. See, to me the changing of the water into wine was a miracle to those that carried the water to the governor of the feast, and to those who knew they were out of wine. But to everyone else I would have just kept silent. I wouldn't even have told the governor of the feast where the wine came from. I mean, if that was my wedding, am I going to stand up and announce "Sorry everyone, we are out of wine"? Jesus mother found out, and she in turn told Jesus, but to my impression she was still trying to keep this on the down low.
Likewise, feeding the 5,000. I am sure that to the disciples charged with feeding them, they were well aware that a miracle took place, but I don't understand what everyone else understood. If I had been there I certainly wouldn't have announced that "hey, last night it was a miracle that we were able to feed you".
These are two good examples of miracles to me. Yes, they are very public, they are very real, but unless you are actively concerned with feeding the 5,000 or of serving wine to the guests it is easy to be clueless about what is going on.
You don't think the people asked where the best wine came from? You don't think the people asked where all that food came from? Did the people asked cover it up?
Jesus obviously didn't want sensationalism, but he did want witnesses to his miracles. Otherwise, he wouldn't have called attention to them at all, as he did with John's disciples. Neither would have Paul called attention to his. And they never would have been recorded in the Bible.
I really don't understand what this line of theorizing is about. Are you trying to say that Jesus' and Paul's miracles were not meant to attest to their anointing? If not that, what's your point?
Did I miss something? Why am I being included in this?
Because when Ohio said the post was "extremely degrading" and "threw him for a loop" you said (Post #170) that you also did a double take on that post.
ZNPaaneah
09-07-2011, 06:25 PM
You don't think the people asked where the best wine came from? You don't think the people asked where all that food came from? Did the people asked cover it up?
Jesus obviously didn't want sensationalism, but he did want witnesses to his miracles. Otherwise, he wouldn't have called attention to them at all, as he did with John's disciples, and they never would have been recorded in the Bible,
Please, let me savor this moment. Please tell me that OBW is reading this! You sound like me and my teaching on Jesse's teaching:lol:
I am just speaking from my own personal experience. It seems more accurate to look at those cases that happened to me than it is to talk about what people perceived 2,000 years ago. Without any doubt people spread the word that Jesus was a miracle man, He had trouble going into cities, and people heard of His fame. Other than that I have a sense that the turning of water to wine was done discreetly. As for the feeding of thousands, I find those accounts harder to discern. Were the crowds following Jesus because they were fed in the same way that people vote for a politician who promises them jobs? Or were they following Him because they saw the miracle of the feeding and realized He was an Apostle from God? It seems that the Lord's attitude concerning them was that their following him was not a matter of faith but of the flesh.
Please, let me savor this moment. Please tell me that OBW is reading this! You sound like me and my teaching on Jesse's teaching:lol:
I am just speaking from my own personal experience. It seems more accurate to look at those cases that happened to me than it is to talk about what people perceived 2,000 years ago. Without any doubt people spread the word that Jesus was a miracle man, He had trouble going into cities, and people heard of His fame. Other than that I have a sense that the turning of water to wine was done discreetly. As for the feeding of thousands, I find those accounts harder to discern. Were the crowds following Jesus because they were fed in the same way that people vote for a politician who promises them jobs? Or were they following Him because they saw the miracle of the feeding and realized He was an Apostle from God? It seems that the Lord's attitude concerning them was that their following him was not a matter of faith but of the flesh.
Then why did Jesus work miracles?
Don't confuse following Jesus because he could work a miracle for you with following Jesus because he could work miracles. The former means you could get an outward benefit, the latter means he was someone really special.
I fully believe he worked miracles in part so they would realize the latter.
Jesus either worked miracles to help people or to show he was capable working them, or both. I fully believe Jesus cared about people. But if he only cared about people he could have worked miracles secretly and/or from a distance. He didn't have to let on that he was involved at all. But he worked miracles in a way that there was no doubt that he was the one doing them. He clearly wanted to express and testify of both his care and his power.
Jesus didn't have to work miracles at all. He could have just preached the kingdom and let his character do all the testifying for him. But it strongly appears God felt there needed to be an unavoidable testimony that he was more than just a man. Thus the miracles. So they most likely were performed not just to show care, but to testify of who Jesus was.
My point was that if you ask for a record of signs and wonders that eliminates the bulk of the field right off the bat. There is other criteria as well that can be applied to the remainder.
I really don't understand what belief you are actually advocating. Are you saying we should leave the door open for some apostle with the authority of Peter or Paul's stature to come along, just in case he does? Or are you just saying it should be okay to call someone an apostle today? Or are you saying anyone with an apostolic-like gift should call himself an apostle and we should too, and we're not being biblical if we don't? What exactly would you like people to believe?
I am looking for answers myself. It sounds easy to "ask for a record of signs and wonders," but these are not the kinds of things the true apostles boast in. These wonders are marks upon their life and work. I do believe that, in today's environment, if a brother really is an apostle, with accompanying signs, he would do his best to keep it quiet. The Lord attempted to do this.
When I am with brothers of the pentecostal persuasion, I would like to prepare myself to address these topics, should the need arise. A month ago, things were said, and I was not able to speak up and address some of these issues. You seem to be one who has never confronted this type of controversy, so you are able to maintain neat little packaged doctrines in your portfolio. I have found the greater body of Christ to be pretty complicated, and venturing out into uncharted waters brings a whole host of surprises and challenges to what I thought I understood so clearly.
Jesus didn't have to work miracles at all. He could have just preached the kingdom and let his character do all the testifying for him. But it strongly appears God felt there needed to be an unavoidable testimony that he was more than just a man. Thus the miracles. So they most likely were performed not just to show care, but to testify of who Jesus was.
Acts 17:31 says, "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him [Jesus] from the dead."
God proved his desgination of Jesus as Lord and Christ by raising Him from the dead. In His life, God also proved/confirmed Jesus by the mighty works which He did through Him(Luke 7:22,23). Likewise, Hebrews 2:4 says "those who heard Him" were also confirmed/proved/affirmed by works of power. Paul said (2 Cor 12:12) the marks of an apostle are evident in signs and wonders and miracles.
Now, 2,000 years have passed. We have the "clear word". My sense is that the need for confirming signs has passed. I was asking for signs and miracles and wonders semi-facetiously, because I think the need for apostles is also past. We have the Bible; we also have the fellowship of the believers, to sort our way, collectively as God's flock, to see God's revealed will in His word.
So when someone comes along and says how Ephesians 4 or some other scripture shows the continual necessity of apostles, my reply is, doesn't the same scripture show the confirming works of the apostles? Why keep one and toss the other? 2 Timothy 4:20b does not clearly demonstrate the turning of an age.
I am looking for answers myself. It sounds easy to "ask for a record of signs and wonders," but these are not the kinds of things the true apostles boast in. These wonders are marks upon their life and work. I do believe that, in today's environment, if a brother really is an apostle, with accompanying signs, he would do his best to keep it quiet. The Lord attempted to do this.
If the Lord had wanted to keep his miracles completely quiet he never would have performed them in any way that could be connected to him. And he didn't ask everyone not to tell about them. Sometimes he did, and sometimes he didn't.
But concealing some miracle wasn't just about not being boastful. Otherwise, Paul would not have written 2 Cor 12:12, and Jesus would have never said the words in Luke 7:22. Clearly signs are intended to attest that God is with someone in an extraordinary way.
When I am with brothers of the pentecostal persuasion, I would like to prepare myself to address these topics, should the need arise. A month ago, things were said, and I was not able to speak up and address some of these issues. You seem to be one who has never confronted this type of controversy, so you are able to maintain neat little packaged doctrines in your portfolio. I have found the greater body of Christ to be pretty complicated, and venturing out into uncharted waters brings a whole host of surprises and challenges to what I thought I understood so clearly.
What type of controversy specifically? The claim that someone is an apostle? I surely have had to confront that. That miracles have been done? I believe in miracles. I've seen them happen.
But we are talking about a different class of thing I believe. We're talking about something that can be classified as a "sign and wonder." We're talking about major illnesses being healed on the spot and other things which can only be explained by the supernatural.
You probably heard of the fires in the Austin area. One occurred near where we live, actually in a neighborhood we used to live in. They evacuated the area and some friends whose house was very near the fire and in danger stayed with us for two nights. Anyway, some other friends also close to the fire evacuated and they and others prayed fervently for the house of another friend which was on a cul-de-sac which was burned. The house was spared, even though the houses on either side of it burned. See picture here. (http://on.fb.me/ouOCrN) The spared house is in the bottom center of the picture.
Was that a miracle? I'd be a cynic not to think so. But I don't think it qualifies as a sign and wonder as Paul was talking about. I think he was talking about something much more dramatic. People being healed on the spot and raised from the dead and that sort of thing. My point is that kind of miracle is relatively rare in relation to all the other more subtle things God does miraculously. Many miracles can on reflection be "explained" by natural causes. I don't think it's possible to explain by natural causes raising the dead, restoring a hand or ear, walking on water, silencing a storm, causing fearsome waves to instantly turn into a calm sea, or being transfigured into a heavenly being.
ZNPaaneah
09-08-2011, 08:01 AM
2Cor 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
To me, verse 12 is saying that the sings and wonders and mighty deeds were wrought among the saints in Corinth. This was their personal experience. Verse 11 seems to me to be saying that Paul did not want to mention or refer to this, he felt that it was the Corinthians that should have "commended" him. And, I think this word commended does not necessarily infer a reference to the miracles. No doubt, someone's testimony might include this, so you can take that either way.
So yes, I agree with the idea that any true apostle will also have the accompanying signs and wonders. However, I don't agree that it is the Apostle who publishes, promotes or publicizes this. Also, I don't think that it is always profitable to discuss miracles you have experienced with those that haven't. Rather, I think that when you have a genuine experience it confirms the fact that this person is a coworker with God. You would / should then be more assured to commend this one's ministry to others, though you might feel it is best to not mention the signs and wonders.
Finally, this is really up to God. Surely we are all still "coworkers with God". We do our part, He does ours. How could someone in this ministry not come across those who are dead and dying. No doubt you pray and if the Lord chooses to raise the dead, that is His option. But remember, the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Acts 17:31 says, "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him [Jesus] from the dead."
God proved his designation of Jesus as Lord and Christ by raising Him from the dead. In His life, God also proved/confirmed Jesus by the mighty works which He did through Him(Luke 7:22,23). Likewise, Hebrews 2:4 says "those who heard Him" were also confirmed/proved/affirmed by works of power. Paul said (2 Cor 12:12) the marks of an apostle are evident in signs and wonders and miracles.
Now, 2,000 years have passed. We have the "clear word". My sense is that the need for confirming signs has passed. I was asking for signs and miracles and wonders semi-facetiously, because I think the need for apostles is also past. We have the Bible; we also have the fellowship of the believers, to sort our way, collectively as God's flock, to see God's revealed will in His word.
Abraham told the rich man in Luke 16 that, "they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them," when the rich man begged for someone to "rise from the dead." Abraham felt that people already had enough "proof." Yet God went further to "prove his designation," by many signs and wonders testifying who Jesus was. God then went further to raise Him from the dead. Nor God didn't stop there. He wrought many works of power through the Apostles. Their teachings have also been added to scripture.
Church history is filled with many more works of power, and while their writings have not been added to scripture, they have added to a tremendous resource of biographies, histories, commentaries, tracts, etc. The Head of the body has been giving "gifts" to man for 2,000 years. He has never stopped. Church history also records that many "confirming signs" have accompanied the gospel pioneers to new lands. The Bible tells us that the only hindrance to "confirming signs" is unbelief. For example, the city of Nazareth witnessed no "confirming signs" because of their unbelief.
So when someone comes along and says how Ephesians 4 or some other scripture shows the continual necessity of apostles, my reply is, doesn't the same scripture show the confirming works of the apostles? Why keep one and toss the other? 2 Timothy 4:20b does not clearly demonstrate the turning of an age.
I guess this someone refers to me. But ... I used Ephesians 4 to say that the Head never stopped giving "gifts" to men. Whether the body requires the continual necessity of apostles is not my responsibility, it is His. He has never told us that we don't need them.
Nor did I use 2 Tim 4:20b to say there was a turning of an age. It was cited to address the circus-carnival-wonder-working-demonstrations-of-power that were being demanded of the apostles for verification. If Paul to be such a on-demand-faith-healer, why would he leave a brother sick somewhere? For that matter, why would anyone ever be sick around the early Apostles? Why didn't Paul just send him a clean hanky?
God felt there needed to be an unavoidable testimony that he was more than just a man. The miracles... were performed ...to testify of who Jesus was.
A la Peter in Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know"
In contrast, thus far I have seen people like Todd Bentley who don't impress me, to say the least. There is power there, but I am not convinced it is of God. Swapping his wife for a newer model seems to be a confirmation of other forces at work.
Then I have seen over-reaching Bible teachers like Lee who somehow need to be "apostles" to maintain sway over the flock. Not impressed at all.
Not to mention all the false apostles and prophets and christs out there. Practically too numerous to name.
But, I have indeed seen power exhibited, and occasionally felt it myself. God has, thus, proven, or confirmed, or attested, His Son Jesus to us, again and again and again. Some of these manifestations may indeed have been through apostles. I am not going to name names, because I don't want to mar the point (okay, one: Billy Graham. I saw Graham deal with a very determined and intelligent and well-prepared opposer in a hostile setting, and Graham had the man purring like a kitty-cat in about 2 minutes. The hair stood right up on my arms).
But my witness to power does not confirm some need to have a delineated set of roles a la Ephesians 4:11 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers," or 1 Corinthians 12:28 "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."
The idea that formal, clearly delineated and universally-recognized positions are continually supported by these verses, to me, is to put God in a box. Watchman Nee's box labeled "The Normal Christian Church" is still a box.
Finally, this is really up to God. ...we are all still "coworkers with God". We do our part, He does ours. How could someone in this ministry not come across those who are dead and dying. ...you pray and if the Lord chooses to raise the dead, that is His option. But remember, the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Amen; we are one. Probably much more than we realize. My sense of it increases all the time. Surely the Lord's return draws nigh.
But we are talking about a different class of thing I believe. We're talking about something that can be classified as a "sign and wonder." We're talking about major illnesses being healed on the spot and other things which can only be explained by the supernatural.
You probably heard of the fires in the Austin area. One occurred near where we live, actually in a neighborhood we used to live in. They evacuated the area and some friends whose house was very near the fire and in danger stayed with us for two nights. Anyway, some other friends also close to the fire evacuated and they and others prayed fervently for the house of another friend which was on a cul-de-sac which was burned. The house was spared, even though the houses on either side of it burned. See picture here. (http://on.fb.me/ouOCrN) The spared house is in the bottom center of the picture.
That link needs a login. But glad to hear about your freind.
I'm not so sure the apostolic "signs and wonders" were as dramatic as you think. Nothing he did was as dramatic as Elijah calling down fire surrounded by the worshipers of Baal. Not everybody dies from snake bites. The Pharisees found ways to discredit the Lord's miracles, and so did the Judaizers with Paul's.
This is why the resurrection of Jesus was so orchestrated by the Father. It was a public execution by the ruling empire. The cross was guarded by Roman soldiers as was the grave site. There was darkness and earthquakes. Jesus was witnessed alive by hundreds. He still had holes in His hands and feet! His resurrection was absolutely indisputable, yet still the Pharisees tried to discredit it.
Anyways, this seems to be a dead topic. Every one has made their points, and are now repeating them, trying to score extra points.
Abraham told the rich man in Luke 16 that, "they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them," when the rich man begged for someone to "rise from the dead." Abraham felt that people already had enough "proof." Yet God went further to "prove his designation," by many signs and wonders testifying who Jesus was. God then went further to raise Him from the dead. Nor God didn't stop there. He wrought many works of power through the Apostles. Their teachings have also been added to scripture.
Church history is filled with many more works of power ... The Head of the body has been giving "gifts" to man for 2,000 years. He has never stopped. Church history also records that many "confirming signs" have accompanied the gospel pioneers to new lands. The Bible tells us that the only hindrance to "confirming signs" is unbelief. For example, the city of Nazareth witnessed no "confirming signs" because of their unbelief.?
Good words, all.
I used Ephesians 4 to say that the Head never stopped giving "gifts" to men. Whether the body requires the continual necessity of apostles is not my responsibility, it is His. He has never told us that we don't need them.
I may have mischaracterized your argument to make mine. I believe I've done that once or twice before.:rolleyes:
Nor did I use 2 Tim 4:20b to say there was a turning of an age. It was cited to address the circus-carnival-wonder-working-demonstrations-of-power that were being demanded of the apostles for verification. If Paul to be such a on-demand-faith-healer, why would he leave a brother sick somewhere? For that matter, why would anyone ever be sick around the early Apostles? Why didn't Paul just send him a clean hanky?
Interesting questions. I have my own theories. I think the organization of the "church" co-opted the Spirit. Instead of feeding the thousands, they organized deacons.
Now, having said that, I immediately place myself waaaaaay at the bottom. Whatever "works of power" were evinced in the scripture, and in the record of history, I should tremble even to tap at a keyboard, if my "works" were to be set up next and compared. So I certainly don't write as "one who has laid hold".
But I am indignant when I see people set themselves up as something, when they clearly are not validated by God, to draw away the foolish and the simple (nor, conversely, do I yearn for the circus-like "power... and authority ... and signs" seen in Revelation 13 by the false prophet and the beast).
... this seems to be a dead topic. Every one has made their points, and are now repeating them, trying to score extra points.
Noooo! I have not yet vanquished all!
Interesting questions. I have my own theories. I think the organization of the "church" co-opted the Spirit. Instead of feeding the thousands, they organized deacons.
But I am indignant when I see people set themselves up as something, when they clearly are not validated by God, to draw away the foolish and the simple (nor, conversely, do I yearn for the circus-like "power... and authority ... and signs" seen in Revelation 13 by the false prophet and the beast).
Not quite sure about your theory, since the initial deacons' first responsibility was to "feed thousands," or maybe just a few Greek widows.
I share the same indignation, and that's why I seem to have objections to only using "signs and wonders" to confirm apostles. The Bible does it, so I have little choice, but it's not without a few reservations.
To me, verse 12 is saying that the signs and wonders and mighty deeds were wrought among the saints in Corinth. This was their personal experience. Verse 11 seems to me to be saying that Paul did not want to mention or refer to this, he felt that it was the Corinthians that should have "commended" him. And, I think this word commended does not necessarily infer a reference to the miracles. No doubt, someone's testimony might include this, so you can take that either way.
So yes, I agree with the idea that any true apostle will also have the accompanying signs and wonders. However, I don't agree that it is the Apostle who publishes, promotes or publicizes this. Also, I don't think that it is always profitable to discuss miracles you have experienced with those that haven't. Rather, I think that when you have a genuine experience it confirms the fact that this person is a coworker with God. You would / should then be more assured to commend this one's ministry to others, though you might feel it is best to not mention the signs and wonders.
Finally, this is really up to God. Surely we are all still "coworkers with God". We do our part, He does ours. How could someone in this ministry not come across those who are dead and dying. No doubt you pray and if the Lord chooses to raise the dead, that is His option. But remember, the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
These are all great points hitherto unmentioned.
Lots of good points made in this thread. I've learned some things and my views have been sharpened.
Here the picture of the spared house.
http://i52.tinypic.com/34ifts0.jpg
A la Peter in Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know"
In contrast, thus far I have seen people like Todd Bentley who don't impress me, to say the least. There is power there, but I am not convinced it is of God. Swapping his wife for a newer model seems to be a confirmation of other forces at work.
Then I have seen over-reaching Bible teachers like Lee who somehow need to be "apostles" to maintain sway over the flock. Not impressed at all.
Not to mention all the false apostles and prophets and christs out there. Practically too numerous to name.
But, I have indeed seen power exhibited, and occasionally felt it myself. God has, thus, proven, or confirmed, or attested, His Son Jesus to us, again and again and again. Some of these manifestations may indeed have been through apostles. I am not going to name names, because I don't want to mar the point (okay, one: Billy Graham. I saw Graham deal with a very determined and intelligent and well-prepared opposer in a hostile setting, and Graham had the man purring like a kitty-cat in about 2 minutes. The hair stood right up on my arms).
But my witness to power does not confirm some need to have a delineated set of roles a la Ephesians 4:11 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers," or 1 Corinthians 12:28 "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."
The idea that formal, clearly delineated and universally-recognized positions are continually supported by these verses, to me, is to put God in a box. Watchman Nee's box labeled "The Normal Christian Church" is still a box.
Great post, aron. I agree with this one and your one before.
If signs and wonders are indeed meant to attest to apostleship, then there needs to be some way of knowing the alleged apostles have done them. The issue of boasting or being modest is really a side issue. Making modesty the main point would be like a policeman not wearing his uniform because he didn't want people to think he boasted about being a policeman. That's very noble, but how are people to be know he's really a policeman?
ZNPaaneah
09-08-2011, 12:32 PM
If signs and wonders are indeed meant to attest to apostleship, then there needs to be some way of knowing the alleged apostles have done them. The issue of boasting or being modest is really a side issue. Making modesty the main point would be like a policeman not wearing his uniform because he didn't want people to think he boasted about being a policeman. That's very noble, but how are people to be know he's really a policeman?
You are saying that miracles are like a uniform that a policeman wears so that everyone can see he is a policeman.
That is not my experience at all.
Perhaps in my experience miracles are the Policeman's gun that shoots the bad guy right before he kills you. Or it might be the hypodermic needle the doctor uses to save the dying man. Do we really want to determine who the real police are by the way they shoot guns? Or who the real doctors are by the drugs they inject into people?
You are saying that miracles are like a uniform that a policeman wears so that everyone can see he is a policeman.
That is not my experience at all.
Really? What experience have you had of apostles? Recall we are talking about apostles, not miracles in general.
Perhaps in my experience miracles are the Policeman's gun that shoots the bad guy right before he kills you. Or it might be the hypodermic needle the doctor uses to save the dying man. Do we really want to determine who the real police are by the way they shoot guns? Or who the real doctors are by the drugs they inject into people?
I think you are totally missing my point.
I simply said, if signs are a required indication of apostles then by definition we need to have some way of knowing about an alleged apostles signs.
Why is that statement so hard to follow?
ZNPaaneah
09-08-2011, 02:54 PM
Really? What experience have you had of apostles? Recall we are talking about apostles, not miracles in general.
I think you are totally missing my point.
I simply said, if signs are a required indication of apostles then by definition we need to have some way of knowing about an alleged apostles signs.
Why is that statement so hard to follow?
No, my post was referring to your analogy of miracles being a uniform, and in my experience miracles are not at all like a uniform.
1. "Signs are a required indication of an apostle." [I can accept that, even I can say Amen to that. I would say that a true Apostle is a coworker of God, and at some point that should be made clear through a sign or a miracle].
2. "Then by definition we need to have some way of knowing about an alleged apostles signs." [I can also agree with this statement once we clarify who the term "we" refers to].
My issue is this. An apostle, if he is a "missionary" will be preaching the gospel to hundreds of people, perhaps thousands. These people may have not had any prior experience of Christians, or else a very limited experience. So this is really something they are brand new to. How does this person learn of the miracles? If you are talking about a coworker, I would expect they would see the miracles take place first hand. For the gospel contacts I also hope it would be first hand experience. It is not something that the servant needs to discuss, your focus should be on ministering and serving. When the Lord chooses He may provide a sign or a miracle.
For example, I read a story about George Mueller. He had said if they ever were unable to feed the kids at the orphanage he would close it down because it was evidence that God was no longer a coworker. One Sunday they came to him, said they didn't have any food, it was in the afternoon, dinner was a few hours away, they had nothing to cook, and the stores were closed. So he gathered all the serving ones together to pray. A few minutes later someone came and said there was a truck outside full of meat. The driver said that he had come to deliver it and the store was closed and the meat would go bad so the people in the town had directed him to the orphanage.
So surely, all the coworkers and serving ones were well aware of God's hand in the ministry. But do you now broadcast this? Do you send out a letter to donors? Mueller refused to do so and waited about 6 months to send out his next letter. His reason was based on a principle, he decided it would be insulting to God to ever send out letters to the supporters when they were low on funds. So, there was no way to "trumpet" this miracle, or "parade around wearing this miracle" without also revealing that they were low on funds. The story showed up in the biography years later, but far too late for anyone to decide they want to contribute to this ministry or participate in it. Let people come to the ministry out of a burden to serve, not out of the hope to see Jesus walk across their swimming pool.
The road that leads to life is a narrow way and few there be that find it. If you put miracles on the servant like a purple robe you make it too easy for the unbelievers and fleshly to find this way. When they were deciding to crucify Jesus they said that there was no prophecy of any prophet coming out of Nazareth. Even these learned Bible scholars were unaware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they were unaware that wise men from the East had come giving him gifts after seeing his star, they were unaware that as a result of this thousands of kids were killed. No doubt these events were part of their relatively recent history, yet Jesus never went around saying that He was that kid. He never told anyone that Herod himself had wanted to kill Jesus as a baby.
This is why I do not like the analogy of a policeman's uniform.
My issue is this. An apostle, if he is a "missionary" will be preaching the gospel to hundreds of people, perhaps thousands. These people may have not had any prior experience of Christians, or else a very limited experience. So this is really something they are brand new to. How does this person learn of the miracles?
Right, but if he's preaching the gospel he's acting as an evangelist, not an apostle, so miracles are not required.
An apostle (in the context of our discussion) is one who has special authority to dictate truth to multiple churches, to directly lead multiple churches, to administer discipline to multiple churches, to appoint elders in multiple churches, and so forth. This is the kind of apostle Paul was, and the kind WL was purported to be.
ZNPaaneah
09-08-2011, 03:24 PM
Right, but if he's preaching the gospel he's acting as an evangelist, not an apostle, so miracles are not required.
An apostle (in the context of our discussion) is one who has special authority to dictate truth to multiple churches, to directly lead multiple churches, to administer discipline to multiple churches, to appoint elders in multiple churches, and so forth. This is the kind of apostle Paul was, and the kind WL was purported to be.
And pretty much the kind Hudson Taylor was, or William Carey was.
Again, I did not use the term "evangelist" though you would expect a missionary to evangelize (as Paul also did). Rather I used the term Missionary because we had earlier agreed in this thread that Christianity has shy'ed away from the term Apostle and instead substituted the word missionary.
(Also, the Bible makes it very clear that miracles are for the unbelieving, so, on the contrary they are very effective in the gospel. I had an evangelist share a story with me. He was in Haiti after the earthquake. There were gangs out to get his team. I think it was because of the way they distributed the food aid, I don't remember that part of the story. Anyway they were on a particular street corner preaching the gospel but regardless of how hard the gangs tried, they couldn't find them, even though people were telling them which street corner they were on. They said that when they got to the street corner they became "blind". This apparently was the testimony of the men in this gang.)
And this story illustrates to me, why miracles are a very poor substitute for the truth of the gospel. If you believe this brother's account, and I do, then it is a testimony of how God can be with us. But, if you don't believe it, what is the point, there is no way to prove it. However, the story was told as an explanation for why the crowds were suddenly coming to hear him preach. The local people had expected the gangs to come and stayed away, when they learned that they were unable to "find" him because they were going blind, then they came out in force. This is what a true miracle is supposed to be, it is God acting as a coworker. His miracle filled the hall so that now they could hear you preach the truth of the gospel.
If someone is too fastidious to produce his track record of signs and wonders then he ought to be too fastidious to accept the label of apostle.
ZNPaaneah
09-08-2011, 03:41 PM
If some is too fastidious to produce his track record of signs and wonders then he ought to be too fastidious to accept the label of apostle.
Who cares about the label. Is that what this discussion is about? I thought the question was whether or not apostles exist today.
In contrast, thus far I have seen people like Todd Bentley who don't impress me, to say the least. There is power there, but I am not convinced it is of God. Swapping his wife for a newer model seems to be a confirmation of other forces at work.
Recently an older couple told me of the Lakeland blessing with all the wonders and healings. He said, "people were getting out of their wheel chairs and walking ... perhaps a little wobbly at first." He said this as evidence of the Spirit's move there.
Granted I am a "recovering" skeptic who does believe the Lord can heal any man, but perhaps those folks were "wobbly" before they got the wheel chair. Perhaps their "healing" was only wishful thinking. For sure Bentley's assistants claimed a "healing" without verification.
Todd Bentley, at least for me, is one such case where signs and wonders appear to prove his "anointing." Verification is very difficult. Even aron says "there is power there." How can one have signs and wonders, yet be filled with unrighteousness. How can the Lord use a man who dumps his wife for an intern. This is why signs and wonders cannot be the only test for apostleship.
Reminds me of Benny Hinn and Paula White strolling arm-in-arm in Rome "comforting one another." First adultery, then lies to cover it up, yet both of them still have the "power" of the Holy Ghost. Paula recently preached to other leaders ...
"The enemy strategically plotted against you, hunted you like prey, set out to destroy you, tried to wreck your mind, destroy your heart, jack up your family, take your ministry, ruin your reputation ... and he thought that he had you. He set you up and thought this is what will kill them.
"I came to put every devil on notice ... I'm getting my dream back, I'm getting my prophesy back, I'm getting my vision back, I'm getting my anointing back, I'm getting my strength back."
Before walking back through her tumultuous past few years, she told them, "I think it's time we stop being hypocrites in the pulpit. I think ... it's time that we take the mask off to this generation and show them that we have the same issues and the same struggles."
"We're going public with all our stuff. Somebody's got to get real in the church now."
Sounds to me like the nasty "side-effects" of her conscience are wearing off.
The road that leads to life is a narrow way and few there be that find it. If you put miracles on the servant like a purple robe you make it too easy for the unbelievers and fleshly to find this way. When they were deciding to crucify Jesus they said that there was no prophecy of any prophet coming out of Nazareth. Even these learned Bible scholars were unaware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they were unaware that wise men from the East had come giving him gifts after seeing his star, they were unaware that as a result of this thousands of kids were killed. No doubt these events were part of their relatively recent history, yet Jesus never went around saying that He was that kid. He never told anyone that Herod himself had wanted to kill Jesus as a baby.
Good points. This is why I find it is almost impossible to use signs and wonders as the standard. The real ones won't advertize their works, and the false ones will.
rayliotta
09-09-2011, 04:53 AM
If I could pipe in here, I get the feeling that what everyone really wants to be able to say is, something like this, Anybody who claims to be "an apostle", surely is not, because a real apostle would never make such a claim about himself.
But, of course, we're kind of stopped in our tracks. Simply because the most famous apostle of them all did boldly, and with certainty, do just that -- he openly declared himself as an apostle.
awareness
09-09-2011, 06:59 AM
If I could pipe in here, I get the feeling that what everyone really wants to be able to say is, something like this, Anybody who claims to be "an apostle", surely is not, because a real apostle would never make such a claim about himself.
But, of course, we're kind of stopped in our tracks. Simply because the most famous apostle of them all did boldly, and with certainty, do just that -- he openly declared himself as an apostle.We can't be today like they were back 2000 years ago.
I'm not saying mythologies are dead today, but they certainly don't fill human minds like they did back 2000 years ago.
So apostles today can't be what apostles were back then, in Paul's day. Neither can the "signs wonders and miracles" be the same today.
We moderns don't so easily buy into such things, like people did back 2000 years ago.
If someone goes around today claiming signs wonders and miracles, people like James Randi will be on it like white on rice. Randi has a standing million dollar reward to anyone that can prove paranormal phenomena. He's had it for decades, and has busted and exposed fraud of, Christian faith healers left and right, and many others, that make such claims.
And they didn't have James Randi's back 2000 years ago. Their minds were way more superstitious than our minds today.
Examples :
1) Weather. Back 2000 years ago they thought God controlled the weather, and brought rains, floods, and droughts as punishment or reward.
Outside idiots like Michelle Bachmann, we don't believe God controls the weather. Not directly like they did back then (God controls everything in the end). We now know of weather systems. We can track them around the globe. We understand natural dynamics control the weather, not the hand of God. Today only the ignorant believe God directly controls the weather. And believe me, they were ignorant 2000 years ago. 90% couldn't read or write.
2) Earthquakes. Earthquakes are frightening. And they are powerful. So the natural inclination back 2000 years ago would be that they are caused by God. Only God could move the earth they would of course believe.
But today we don't see earthquakes as directly caused by God. We now have satellites tracking movements of the earth surface in inches, trying to predict and warn of earthquakes. We know that earthquakes are caused by shifting of Plate Tectonics.
And the list could go on and on, including the matter of the flat earth and the earth being the center of the universe.
And so too with the meaning of apostle and signs wonders and miracles. They are not going to mean the same thing today as they meant back 2000 years ago.
Try as we may, to put today's world in the same tapestry as back 2000 years ago, it is impossible. Not going to happen.
Today we will see anyone that claims to be an apostle as a possible cult leader, if not a real one.
Why do you think Lee's Recovery movement has been labelled a cult by so many, especially many ex-members of the LRC, who look upon their days in the local church as being in a cult that they came out of?
Who cares about the label. Is that what this discussion is about? I thought the question was whether or not apostles exist today.
Right. But the corollary to that is, if they exist, how to you know who they are?
Are we just supposed to call people apostles who we think are apostles?
Or are we supposed to call people apostles who say they are apostles?
Another corollary is avoiding the problems of false apostles. If being an apostle is such a fuzzy matter, aren't we opening the door to false apostles and major damage to the Body of Christ?
This thread has made me even more skeptical that there are true apostles today. We can't even agree on what an apostle is. So how are we going to know one when he comes along? This is a practical issue, not a theoretical one.
Harold makes a point I'd like to springboard from. Two-thousand years ago, the church had to deal with false apostles. That was understandable given that things were new and the church was learning as it went.
In this day and age, after 2000 years of learning and experience and theology -- we still can't agree on what an apostle is or who they are. We can agree on what a shepherd is and an evangelist is and a teacher is, but not an apostle.
That to me is amazing, and evidence that we should tread lightly around the designation of apostle. These days the title has far more potential for abuse than benefit. Being the pragmatic person I am, that is reason enough to shy away from using it.
I'm not insisting on this, it's just a suggestion borne of what I've seen and experienced.
ZNPaaneah
09-09-2011, 07:41 AM
Right. But the corollary to that is, if they exist, how to you know who they are?
Are we just supposed to call people apostles who we think are apostles?
Or are we supposed to call people apostles who say they are apostles?
Another corollary is avoiding the problems of false apostles. If being an apostle is such a fuzzy matter, aren't we opening the door to false apostles and major damage to the Body of Christ?
This thread has made me even more skeptical that there are true apostles today. We can't even agree on what an apostle is. So how are we going to know one when he comes along? This is a practical issue, not a theoretical one.
I think Martin Luther was an apostle. I don't think it was necessary to "call him an apostle" to receive his teaching and to leave the Catholic church.
I think Hudson Taylor was an apostle. I imagine that many of the new converts that received his gospel and began to meet in church congregations had no idea about anything more than the fact that he brought the gospel to them.
Once again, I think the best way to know an apostle is by there fruit. We don't need to know someone is "an evangelist". If they do the work of an evangelist and have the fruit of an evangelist, then does it really matter if we call them an evangelist? Likewise, if you do the work of an apostle and have the fruit of an apostle, does it really matter if you have the title of an apostle?
Once again, I think the best way to know an apostle is by there fruit. We don't need to know someone is "an evangelist". If they do the work of an evangelist and have the fruit of an evangelist, then does it really matter if we call them an evangelist? Likewise, if you do the work of an apostle and have the fruit of an apostle, does it really matter if you have the title of an apostle?
It seems that only with a few exceptions was it ever necessary to claim the title of apostleship. Paul, of course, was the most obvious. The reason was also obvious. He was commissioned to go to the Gentiles. Jesus was sent to the house of Israel and his struggles, excluding the work of redemption, were enormous just facing the Jewish leaders. Paul took on additional conflicts by taking the gospel to the uncircumcised.
How many of the other apostles killed the Christians, striking fear in their hearts? (Acts 9.13-14) How many of the other apostles saw the heavenly Jesus, went to the third heaven, and to paradise, hearing unspeakable words? (2 Cor 12.1-4) How many of the other apostles were martyred and returned from the dead? (Acts 14.19-20) How many of the other apostles were even called directly by revelation of the ascended Head, while many others were still arguing about who had spent time with the earthly Jesus. (Galatians 1) Many Apostles did great work for the kingdom, but Paul pioneered the gospel outside of Israel. Every Gentile in history is indebted to him.
I think Martin Luther was an apostle. I don't think it was necessary to "call him an apostle" to receive his teaching and to leave the Catholic church.
I think Hudson Taylor was an apostle. I imagine that many of the new converts that received his gospel and began to meet in church congregations had no idea about anything more than the fact that he brought the gospel to them.
Once again, I think the best way to know an apostle is by there fruit. We don't need to know someone is "an evangelist". If they do the work of an evangelist and have the fruit of an evangelist, then does it really matter if we call them an evangelist? Likewise, if you do the work of an apostle and have the fruit of an apostle, does it really matter if you have the title of an apostle?
Right. You think. I think. They think. That's no basis upon which to allot someone authority over multiple churches. That my point.
It's enough basis to consider someone's message worthy of consideration. But it's no basis upon which to allot someone the kind of authority bestowed on Witness Lee, or Herbert Armstrong, or anyone like that. The fruit you speak of has made that clear.
ZNPaaneah
09-09-2011, 09:13 AM
Right. You think. I think. They think. That's no basis upon which to allot someone authority over multiple churches. That my point.
It's enough basis to consider someone's message worthy of consideration. But it's no basis upon which to allot someone the kind of authority bestowed on Witness Lee, or Herbert Armstrong, or anyone like that. The fruit you speak of has made that clear.
You do not allot someone apostolic authority merely because you listen to their message or attend a church that sells their books. If Paul, or Martin Luther, or anyone else is "allotted authority" it comes directly from the Lord, to whom all authority has been given.
I was in the LRC, what authority did I allot to WL? I cannot think of anything.
You say that this is practical discussion, not a theoretical one. Who allots apostolic authority to others? When do they do this? How? Why?
You might think that only selling WL books in the church book room is allotting authority to him. However, that was never my experience. I bought more books that were not written by WL than were (in the church book room, I bought none at Christian bookstores or BN.com, etc. In fact, I may have bought more books that were not published by the LSM at the church bookstore than ones that were. If I recall correctly, I bought a Bible, a Concordance, a word study, and three biographies that were not published by LSM from the Houston Bookroom. I probably bought more than 5 LSM published books from that bookroom as well, but definitely not 5 WL books. Also, I think a few of the WN books I bought were not published by LSM. Based on that I would say I definitely bought more books that were not published by the LSM than were from the Houston bookstore.
We can't be today like they were back 2000 years ago.
....Try as we may, to put today's world in the same tapestry as back 2000 years ago, it is impossible. Not going to happen.
This is true. "And they held all things in common" in Acts 2:44. Not going to happen today.
Lot of things that were going on in Jerusalem and Judea and Asia Minor in AD 30 - 90 not going to fly today.
But: "Love one another" is still good. "Forgive us Father as we forgive others who offend us" is still good. And so forth.
RayLiotta: Paul we give a pass to because of the weight of history. But if anyone else comes along and says, "Am I not also an apostle?" (1 Cor. 9:1) they are going to have to overcome the lack of 2,000 years of God's affirmation of such.
That includes Hudson Taylor, Martin Luther, Moody, Wesley, Graham, and anyone else you want to name.
awareness
09-09-2011, 10:00 AM
But: "Love one another" is still good. "Forgive us Father as we forgive others who offend us" is still good. And so forth.All teachings that were around long before Jesus.
Why not just accept the gifts that are given to the church. Don't label them.
If it is a gift, then it is a gift. If it is not, then it is not.
Even Martin Luther. Was he clearly an apostle? Who knows for sure. It depends on your definition. But he was a gift to the church.
And so are the ones who meet you at the door of your assembly, or help you find you way around. Or take time to talk and pray with you. Or teach — whether to adults or to children. Should I go on?
Do we need to define an apostle to get his help? Do we need to define an apostle to see and know charlitans, posers, frauds, or even just the overly ambitious?
Seems that living the Christian life has come to a stop for the purpose of hashing over a potentially theoretical point of theology for a purpose that we aren't even sure is relevant to us to know that well. Well, not to a complete stop. But it has been seriously slowed as we line up angels and get out the metaphorical pin. I have an opinion. And I stated part of it days ago. But it really isn't that important.
We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.
You do not allot someone apostolic authority merely because you listen to their message or attend a church that sells their books. If Paul, or Martin Luther, or anyone else is "allotted authority" it comes directly from the Lord, to whom all authority has been given.
Do you mean you don't do it, or you shouldn't do it? Because a heck of a lot of people in the LRC did it.
You say that this is practical discussion, not a theoretical one. Who allots apostolic authority to others? When do they do this? How? Why?
That's my question. So far, no one has done a good job of answering it.
You might think that only selling WL books in the church book room is allotting authority to him. However, that was never my experience.
The overall effect was Lee got credit for being an apostle. Your experience is the exception. And the exception proves the rule.
ZNPaaneah
09-09-2011, 11:06 AM
Why not just accept the gifts that are given to the church. Don't label them.
If it is a gift, then it is a gift. If it is not, then it is not.
Even Martin Luther. Was he clearly an apostle? Who knows for sure. It depends on your definition. But he was a gift to the church.
And so are the ones who meet you at the door of your assembly, or help you find you way around. Or take time to talk and pray with you. Or teach — whether to adults or to children. Should I go on?
Do we need to define an apostle to get his help? Do we need to define an apostle to see and know charlitans, posers, frauds, or even just the overly ambitious?
Seems that living the Christian life has come to a stop for the purpose of hashing over a potentially theoretical point of theology for a purpose that we aren't even sure is relevant to us to know that well. Well, not to a complete stop. But it has been seriously slowed as we line up angels and get out the metaphorical pin. I have an opinion. And I stated part of it days ago. But it really isn't that important.
We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.
I think the motivation is easy to understand. If you conclude that there are no such apostles these days then you would be able to reject the ministry of WL and others with little effort. If you have a set of criteria, then at least you have a check list you can use. However, if it were that easy to discern false apostles then why does the Body need the gift of discernment?
Why not just accept the gifts that are given to the church. Don't label them.
If it is a gift, then it is a gift. If it is not, then it is not.
Even Martin Luther. Was he clearly an apostle? Who knows for sure. It depends on your definition. But he was a gift to the church.
I agree with this.
We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.
This is why I don't like the simplified "apostles must still exist because the Bible doesn't say they don't."
That stance doesn't even bother to define an apostle, and so still leaves the door open for giving someone credit for having the authority of a first century apostle. All in the name of what seems to me misguided biblical purity.
ZNPaaneah
09-09-2011, 11:31 AM
This is why I don't like the simplified "apostles must still exist because the Bible doesn't say they don't."
That stance doesn't even bother to define an apostle, and so still leaves the door open for giving someone credit for having the authority of a first century apostle. All in the name of what seems to me misguided biblical purity.
I thought we already hashed this out, and all agreed that the Bible is a completed book, therefore no one has authority to add or take away from it. Our use of the word apostle in this discussion was similar to the word "Missionary" -- someone who is sent out to establish churches.
UntoHim
09-09-2011, 11:38 AM
We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.
Excellent points Mike. As a practical matter I think we MUST start by looking at the examples provided to us in the New Testament. What did the original/early apostles teach and preach, and maybe even more important, how did they conduct themselves. We are not without examples and a clear record.
Now, this being said, I realize we are now about 2000 years down the road. We are facing realities that the original apostles would never have dreamed of. The "information age" can be both a blessing and a tremendous hindrance to "public figures". If the apostle Paul was around today do you think that everything published on the internet about him and his ministry would be positive?
Ok, ok I haven't addressed the issue of HOW DO WE DETERMINE just who is or who is not an apostle. Maybe if it's so darn hard to determine then maybe that's some sort of confirmation that they don't exist. We know that there are no apostles today that carry the authority and power of the original apostles. First and foremost there is nobody writing scripture. Also nobody is ministering with the same apostolic authority or healing people like the original apostles.
So what then are the necessary "requirements"? I would say that an apostle should exhibit the same traits (for lack of better term) as the original apostles. Maybe they are not writing scripture but they are relating foundational truths of doctrine and practice across a broad spectrum of the Church. This is one reason I would never accept Witness Lee as an apostle - he only ministered among those of his own isolated sect - he had a captive audience that was customized and ready-made to accept him as "the one minister with the one ministry for the age".
I thought we already hashed this out, and all agreed that the Bible is a completed book, therefore no one has authority to add or take away from it. Our use of the word apostle in this discussion was similar to the word "Missionary" -- someone who is sent out to establish churches.
I don't recall total assent to this, but if you believe there was, so much the better.
This is why I don't like the simplified "apostles must still exist because the Bible doesn't say they don't."
That stance doesn't even bother to define an apostle, and so still leaves the door open for giving someone credit for having the authority of a first century apostle. All in the name of what seems to me misguided biblical purity.
I really wish the Bible were so much more nice and orderly and packaged for the believers. All these questions would be answered, and the sheep would be so very happy. I really mean it. Compared to religions like Islam, the Bible just don't spell things out sufficiently.
Why would the Spirit of God leave such an open-ended question as the existence of apostles? What was He thinking? Imagine how I felt the other day, in the midst of this "apostle" thread, talking to an old and distant friend about his church. He was describing the appointment of elders and the approval by the congregation. The brother who nominated the elders was applying "his apostolic authority as the church founder." Yikes!
I should have immediately drug his butt over to certain forum posters for some needed "education." Heretic! False apostle! Wolf! Whatever was he doing thinking that there are still apostles today? Imagine the dangers confronting those helpless sheep? Where are the signs and wonders and works of power? Where are the indisputable and verifiable displays of miraculous power?. Where are the CNN news reports of empty graves, with the former occupants "walking and leaping and praising God," and telling all the people it was "Apostle so-n-so" who raised him from the dead. Jesus raised Lazarus, "real" apostles must do the same!
I found it difficult to critique them myself, since they did preach the gospel, shepherd the sheep, and establish the church from "scratch," and whatever "apostolic authority" he did possess went no further than that little congregation. I have to admit I was taken back at his word, since I have been "properly informed." I had thought that all my "misguided biblical purity" was in remission, but such was not the case.
awareness
09-09-2011, 12:06 PM
I really wish the Bible were so much more nice and orderly and packaged for the believers. All these questions would be answered, and the sheep would be so very happy. I really mean it. Compared to religions like Islam, the Bible just don't spell things out sufficiently.Yeah, if God wrote it He sure didn't do a very good job of clearly spelling things out. God clearly needs some writing lessons.
Yeah, if God wrote it He sure didn't do a very good job of clearly spelling things out. God clearly needs some writing lessons.
Perhaps that is why we are not instructed to walk by the letter of the word but by the Spirit.
I think the motivation is easy to understand. If you conclude that there are no such apostles these days then you would be able to reject the ministry of WL and others with little effort. If you have a set of criteria, then at least you have a check list you can use. However, if it were that easy to discern false apostles then why does the Body need the gift of discernment?Don't get excited about my brief reappearance. But I stuck my two cents in, so I will complete its thought relative to your comments — specifically the ones about Lee.
If someone concludes that there are apostles today, and that the evidence of being an apostle is fully met by Lee, then I will point to specific teaching of one of the scripture-writing apostles — Paul — where he discusses the reasons for rejecting a teacher in general. Seems that Lee failed on several of those. So succeeding in someone's eyes at meeting their understanding of the marks of an apostle would only prove to me that either the marks could be faked, or it's not that easy.
In short, I don't need to discuss apostles to reject Lee. He can't get to local teacher. If you can't get there, you can't get to apostle. I believe that it would be hard to find any scripture that says otherwise.
And I return to some level of "not sure it matters" concerning whether apostles in the 1st century sense continue to exist today. Either they do or they don't. I don't need to find them and fawn over them. I just need to be open and learning from more than one isolated source. And vigilant to see the signs of personal and doctrinal error that suggest Paul's "he's not a valid teacher" rules in various places are being violated.
Seems that the people that I would be most suspicious about actually being an apostle are not trying to exert any kind of control over churches and believers. Just trying to offer their help. Those who are trying to exert control over churches and believers almost uniformly are violating Paul's "reject them" signs. That includes (well, included) Lee. And it includes the BBs in general. "Move along. There's nothing to see here. No apostles here." (Well, who knows, there may be one developing inside. But they surely haven't emerged yet.)
I really wish the Bible were so much more nice and orderly and packaged for the believers. All these questions would be answered, and the sheep would be so very happy. I really mean it. Compared to religions like Islam, the Bible just don't spell things out sufficiently.
Yeah, but if that were the case you wouldn't get these chances to be so scathingly sarcastic. Count your blessings. :thumbup:
Yeah, but if that were the case you wouldn't get these chances to be so scathingly sarcastic. Count your blessings. :thumbup:
Then you don't think that your post was not aimed at Ohio?
You really don't feel that "misguided biblical purity" was not a cheap and sarcastic shot with me in mind?
I may have sounded sarcastic, but scathingly?
Listen, I presented a real conversation I had just last week in my post. In fact, that was not the first one on this thread. I talked about how this topic was of interest because it affects others around me. Why not rather address real situations, than just get a few digs in at me. Your posts which included scripture were the most helpful.
awareness
09-09-2011, 12:58 PM
Perhaps that is why we are not instructed to walk by the letter of the word but by the Spirit.Very good point indeed ... and by faith ...
And I return to some level of "not sure it matters" concerning whether apostles in the 1st century sense continue to exist today. Either they do or they don't. I don't need to find them and fawn over them. I just need to be open and learning from more than one isolated source. And vigilant to see the signs of personal and doctrinal error that suggest Paul's "he's not a valid teacher" rules in various places are being violated.
I'm surprised you said this.
Do you really think that my goal or ZNP's goal is to find an apostle, and fawn over them?
Yeah, if God wrote it He sure didn't do a very good job of clearly spelling things out. God clearly needs some writing lessons.
Very good point indeed ... and by faith ...
I believe that one day we will learn just how well-worded the Bible really is, both in what it says and in what it does not say.
Then you don't think that your post was not aimed at Ohio?
You really don't feel that "misguided biblical purity" was not a cheap and sarcastic shot with me in mind?
I may have sounded sarcastic, but scathingly?
Listen, I presented a real conversation I had just last week in my post. In fact, that was not the first one on this thread. I talked about how this topic was of interest because it affects others around me. Why not rather address real situations, than just get a few digs in at me. Your posts which included scripture were the most helpful.
God knows my heart and knows I'm not getting digs into you. I am addressing the real situation, I think your and others' biblical purity is misguided. Deal with it in some other way other than getting your pride ruffled and accusing others of not being as serious as you claim to be.
Everyone here knows you are the one who has been picking on me, not the other way around. Ever since the Steve Isitt thing you've been doing it. I don't know what your problem is but please stop taking it out on me. I'm not your whipping boy.
rayliotta
09-09-2011, 01:33 PM
You might think that only selling WL books in the church book room is allotting authority to him. However, that was never my experience. I bought more books that were not written by WL than were (in the church book room, I bought none at Christian bookstores or BN.com, etc. In fact, I may have bought more books that were not published by the LSM at the church bookstore than ones that were. If I recall correctly, I bought a Bible, a Concordance, a word study, and three biographies that were not published by LSM from the Houston Bookroom. I probably bought more than 5 LSM published books from that bookroom as well, but definitely not 5 WL books. Also, I think a few of the WN books I bought were not published by LSM. Based on that I would say I definitely bought more books that were not published by the LSM than were from the Houston bookstore.
Ah, the 70's! What magical days those must have been. The days of Puff the Magic Dragon and church bookrooms that actually sold books not published by Living Stream Ministry.
ZNPaaneah
09-09-2011, 01:50 PM
Ah, the 70's! What magical days those must have been. The days of Puff the Magic Dragon and church bookrooms that actually sold books not published by Living Stream Ministry.
The publishing of the RcV was a really significant change. Now, all of a sudden, book rooms that had always sold Bibles could sell the RcV exclusively. Reference tools like a Concordance or word study could be pooh poohed because you had the "footnotes". They had also purchased rights to WN so they could eliminate other WN publications and have only the LSM ones. And, where saints once were encouraged to read the biographies of the past saints, this was not encouraged nearly as much.
rayliotta
09-09-2011, 01:55 PM
RayLiotta: Paul we give a pass to because of the weight of history. But if anyone else comes along and says, "Am I not also an apostle?" (1 Cor. 9:1) they are going to have to overcome the lack of 2,000 years of God's affirmation of such.
That includes Hudson Taylor, Martin Luther, Moody, Wesley, Graham, and anyone else you want to name.
Sure, but who's the "we" here? Based on what Ohio has said, it sounds like there are an awful lot of people for whom this explanation is highly unsatisfactory.
(And we're just talking about in the US, at least I think that's what we're talking about. Aren't there other parts of the world where Pentecostalism is really exploding right now? I don't know what the attitude toward "Apostles" is in other cultures, but I sure could speculate...)
rayliotta
09-09-2011, 01:57 PM
The publishing of the RcV was a really significant change. Now, all of a sudden, book rooms that had always sold Bibles could sell the RcV exclusively. Reference tools like a Concordance or word study could be pooh poohed because you had the "footnotes". They had also purchased rights to WN so they could eliminate other WN publications and have only the LSM ones. And, where saints once were encouraged to read the biographies of the past saints, this was not encouraged nearly as much.
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."
God knows my heart and knows I'm not getting digs into you. I am addressing the real situation, I think your and others' biblical purity is misguided. Deal with it in some other way other than getting your pride ruffled and accusing others of not being as serious as you claim to be.
Everyone here knows you are the one who has been picking on me, not the other way around. Ever since the Steve Isitt thing you've been doing it. I don't know what your problem is but please stop taking it out on me. I'm not your whipping boy.
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.
I'm surprised you said this.
Do you really think that my goal or ZNP's goal is to find an apostle, and fawn over them?Absolutely not. But I do wonder just a little if the next logical step has been thought out completely. Not necessarily by any one person, but in the way almost every part of the discussion is going.
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. If they fail at "teacher" then apostle is just right out. If they are acceptable as a teacher, to what extent? Some end out with supportive ministries, writing, etc., in a way that is not simply a big business. (BTW, it has been said by many that writing books is seldom a source of material income. Despite Lee and his slave-labor, you get no straw dungeon, most people just don't make much on writing books.) Maybe those that are helping beyond one local community or even one assembly are sometimes some kind of apostle. If their function is being realized and used, what would the public designation do? How would things really change?
I'm just wondering if we are going to be like the coyote after getting shrunk to the size of a mouse, when he grabs the road runner (full size) by the ankle and then looks at the screen, and raises a sign that says "Well, I've got him now. What am I supposed to do with him?"
In other words, if we have been going on this long with whatever kind of apostles there might have been, it begins to look like the ongoing benefit of an apostle is not that we identify them but that they are there doing whatever it is that they do.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.