Okay I've started at the OP. And yes I'm ashamed that I've made points that were made in the opening post (left below). But now I think I can make sensible points, perchance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Igzy
But what were Lee's credentials based upon? Nothing but a subjective opinion about him. And that's not enough.
|
It was we, Lee's followers, that swelled Lee's head up like a Puffer Fish, into an apostle. We, the royal we, the we of yesteryear, and presently, around the world, that provides Lee's apostleship bona fides.
And it is enough, for Lee followers ; and both past and present followers are complicit in doing it. If all, or enough, followers fall away, Lee's house of cards all fall down ... so in the end Lee's movement was not of God (in the sense of the apostle Paul, and the others).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Igzy
If you like Lee and his ministry and want to follow it, that's your business. If you think God generally wants to everyone follow him because he was an Apostle, I think you are deceived. That goes even more for the current Blendeds, or whatever they are called now.
|
If Lee was the apostle, what are the Blendeds? Are they Apostolic succession?
Harold
------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.
- They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
- They could work miracles. (I don't see how you can explain away 2 Cor 12:12.)
The problem with conferring apostleship without those proofs is that it potentially puts far too much power in the hands of unqualified people. As I said, the Church needs more evidence than someone's claim of having an impressive ministry and of having planted churches. Nothing wrong with those things. They are good. But they don't make someone an Apostle in the sense of having God-given extra-local authority.
Now there are a lot of church movements and organizations that, based on mutual agreement, do allow extra-local authority. The Methodists are like this. Methodist church pastors answer to a central authority. They even agree to relocate based on a timetable set up by the organization.
But that is voluntary. And I see no big problem with it if it is. There is difference between that and someone claiming "Apostle" authority directly from God. This was what Lee assumed. And even though Lee coyly avoided claiming to be an Apostle, I think it's safe to say he believed he was. If you believe you are the MOTA, you have to believe you are an Apostle. Anyway, his followers believed it.
So the thought was, Lee is an Apostle like Paul, so if you don't follow him you are rebelling against God. That's a whole lot different than saying, "I'm going to submit to the Methodist arrangement as a personal choice." But what were Lee's credentials based upon? Nothing but a subjective opinion about him. And that's not enough.
Again, I think history has shown us in no uncertain terms that conferring Apostleship including the kind of authority Lee claimed causes nothing but problems. It doesn't accomplish anything positive, and it causes a lot of damage. I think that's why God included 2 Cor 12:12 in the Bible.
Why wasn't Lee content to be a traveling teacher and author like most other teachers in the Church? Because he wasn't content with having a ministry. He wanted to control things.
If you like Lee and his ministry and want to follow it, that's your business. If you think God generally wants to everyone follow him because he was an Apostle, I think you are deceived. That goes even more for the current Blendeds, or whatever they are called now. |