[UntoHim]

ZNP,
Nobody around here is calling the early church a cult, and your circular arguments are not helping the discussion go forward. As a matter of fact they just serve to muddy the waters which are already murky enough. Many, if not most, of the so called "New Testament definitions" you speak of have a historical and cultural context to them. Some can be brought forward to our current point in time, some can be brought forward with certain cautions and filters, and some cannot, or should not, be brought forward in any case.

Just who gets to decide what gets brought forward? Well, this is what church history is all about. This is, in part, what historical and biblical theology is all about. And this is why letting a person like Witness Lee decide for a whole movement is extremely unwise, and ultimately dangerous. This is why letting a man, or group of men, dictate to an entire Christian movement who is, and who is not, to be considered "the one apostle", will always end in disaster for the Body of Christ at large, and even tragically for the followers of these men. History has confirmed this over and over again.

Again, just WHO is calling WHO a cult? The old adage "consider the source" applies big time here. For example, where did this term "minister of the age" come from? In this case it came from Watchman Nee. When all the dust settled, who did Nee end up considering "the minister of the age"? Why, HIMSELF of course! And what ministry did Nee end up considering the "ministry of the age"? Why, HIS MINISTRY of course! And whose "vision" did Nee end up considering "the vision of the age"? Why, HIS VISION of course! Needless to say, Witness Lee doubled-down and tripled-down on Nee's mistakes.

Get the picture?
-