[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Brothers/sisters,

An apostle certainly, but not the apostle. Actually Lee believed that Watchman Nee was "an apostle of the age" and said so. But regardless of anyone else's opinion concerning him, Lee never called himself the apostle, he merely took the pattern of an apostle in the appointment of elders. Whether any other "pastor" in Christianity does the same or not, the appointment of elders is, according to the pattern of the Bible, done by an apostle. And clearly "apostle" is an office in the church.

You should be aware that most in evangelical Christianity do not believe that apostles with the authority of the twelve and Paul and possible James existed or exist after the death of the Apostle John. Certainly there are missionaries and church planters and recognized leaders. But there are no apostles with the apostlistic authority held by those in the early days. Our "apostles teaching" is the New Testament. We have no one these days with the authority to come into a city and appoint elders in an existing group of Christians. Lee might have acted as an apostle, but it was only because people submitted to him as such, not because he actually held the authoritative office.

Yes, in the local churches as we generally do not emphasize the gifts by calling some prophets, teachers, healers, etc., but then again that is not a fault. Other denominations don't emphasize the gifts of their members either, by the acknowledgment of a title. This fact doesn't mean that the gifted members don't exist.

Please be honest. The LC deemphasizes these gifts because either they don't want to emphasize miracles or they don't want anyone to rival the speaking of Lee and the BBs. The reason the LC doesn't mention the gift of being a prophet is because prophets can rebuke leaders, if the OT examples mean anything, and the LC wants to downplay that as much as possible.

Where in the New Testament is it ever shown that any person rose up in the middle of a meeting and declared "I think this is false!" That doesn't even happen in today in the context of the denominational meetings. I believe if a person were to stand up in the middle of a sermon and proclaimed the error of the pastor's teaching he/she would be immediately tossed out on their ear.

This is probably true. However, it is only half the story. If a member of a group has enough problem with the direction of the church he can go in peace. In the LC, he is simple a reprobate who must repent or be condemned to wander the earth without a home. Big difference. But you forgot to mention that, I guess.

Where, for example, is the discernment of Christians (literally hundreds of thousands) in a group whose leader claims to be a recipient of "the anointing," and who regularly claims to see and speak to Jesus physically? There is a certain leader in Christianity today (Whose name I will not mention) who once claimed that Jesus would physically appear at one of his healing "crusades." Not only was that believed by thousands, it was not discerned at all when the event did not occur. I would say that, generally speaking, according to my observations, discernment among believers today is in serious decline.

This is ancient history and very misleading as a tempertature gauge of today's situation. I think you need to get out and visit more. Christians are more sophisticated now than you seem to think.

Actually if you read about the early church in Acts, it was very much a socialist means of living. All property was given to the community to be distributed equally among the saints. They shared meals together. Prayed together, and went every Sabbath to the temple together. Where in the Bible does it reveal that the Christian life is one of democracy? Democracy is a political system developed during the Roman era, and copied/redefined by any number of cultures in history. In the church we are a "theocracy" in terms of God, and in terms of man we are closer to socialism....if that's the way you wish to view it. Actually we should be above all forms of human invention, not the least of which is politics.

No, all property was not given to the community. It says they had "all things in common." There is a difference. If I share my home it is in common, but it's still mine. Someone had to own the homes. Some are called to poverty, but not all are.

The chuch is not socialistic at all. Enforcement of giving by man is socialism. Enforcement of giving by conscience is libertarianism. So, actually we are closer to libertarianism. Everyone is free to give, and urged to give, but no giving can be enforced except by God.