Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Cal]

The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.

1. They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
   
   
2. 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.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.

1. They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
   
   
2. 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.

Can you explain how the claim to being an apostle puts power in someone's hands?

I understand that Peter and Paul exhibited power, but it wasn't a result of their claim to being apostles. I also understand that if some small splinter group is affected by a personality cult they could give power to someone claiming to be an apostle, but again, the error there is in giving this man power, something that is prohibited in the NT.

If someone claims to be an evangelist it may or may not be true, but I don't see how that claim gives them power. Likewise with a prophet, teacher, etc.

It seems to my understanding of your position that you aren't really bothered by the idea that we have different gifted members for the perfecting of the saints, but rather that someone wields undo power and influence. I agree with the concern over undo power and influence but think the claim to being an apostle is merely an expression of deceit.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can you explain how the claim to being an apostle puts power in someone's hands?

Good grief, I thought I made this clear a long time ago! This is all about avoiding the abuse of presumed authority.

According to the LCM, apostles have the authority to command multiple churches. We all know that the LCM believed Lee had the authority to command every church on earth, probably including all the non-LCM groups as well.

Now my question is, would the Lord give that much power to on individual without giving the Church a sure-fire way to confirm that person's apostleship? I say no.

The LCM confers it to Lee because they want to be under his authority. Well, I'm not so eager for that myself, so I want more confirmation.

I fail to see why this point is so hard to understand.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Good grief, I thought I made this clear a long time ago! This is all about avoiding the abuse of presumed authority.

According to the LCM, apostles have the authority to command multiple churches. We all know that the LCM believed Lee had the authority to command every church on earth, probably including all the non-LCM groups as well.

Now my question is, would the Lord give that much power to on individual without giving the Church a sure-fire way to confirm that person's apostleship? I say no.

The LCM confers it to Lee because they want to be under his authority. Well, I'm not so eager for that myself, so I want more confirmation.

I fail to see why this point is so hard to understand.

But that is the error. The NT does not support the idea that Apostles can command churches.

We have the epistles of Paul -- I do not see Paul commanding the church except in the matter of gross sin that was reported in different cities. That is not based on "apostolic authority".

We have the letters to the churches in Revelation -- again I don't see John commanding the churches but rather relaying a message from the Lord.

On the other hand I see Paul rebuking Peter at a time when Peter was clearly a leading apostle. I see Peter being afraid of James when James was not an apostle. I see James leading a conference over doctrinal issues when James was not an apostle.

The error to my understanding is allowing a man to claim authority over the kingdom of the heavens, usurping the Lord Jesus' authority.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But that is the error. The NT does not support the idea that Apostles can command churches.

Earth to Z. What's the LCM's point of believing Lee was an apostle if not to confer to him that authority?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Earth to Z. What's the LCM's point of believing Lee was an apostle if not to confer to him that authority?

I agree that this is the LCM's point, but that doesn't make it scriptural.

Their error was creating a mediator between the Lord and us. That is the error. The NT does not make apostle's mediators. You are throwing out the possibility that there are any apostles because of LSM's erroneous teaching, not because of any scriptural basis.

If you deny that there are apostles anymore it makes much of the NT irrelevant. Why did Ephesus need to examine them? Why does Paul need to give us his credentials? Why does Jesus tell us "you will know them by their fruits"?

Are you denying that the Body of Christ has gifts given to it by the Lord? I doubt it. Therefore Eph 4 is relevant, those gifts were given when the Lord ascended, event though we don't see them until later in time. If you agree that the Lord has given gifts to the body, even in the modern age, then how can you parse out apostles?

If you use Galatians where Paul went up to those who were of repute, then you have to also use Galatians where he says that if anyone preaches another gospel other than the one we have received let him be anathema. That is the criteria.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree that this is the LCM's point, but that doesn't make it scriptural.

Actually, they think it is scriptural. They point to Paul seeming to give orders to churches as evidence an apostle can step in and take control.

So which is it? I'm sure if you start a thread titled "There are still Apostles but they don't have Apostolic Authority," then Drake is going to step in and argue with you about it.

So where are we?

• We can't agree on what an apostle is.
• We can't agree on the extent of an apostles' authority.
• We can't agree if there is only one kind or several kinds of apostles.
• We can't agree if the original 12 + Paul were fundamentally different.
• We can't agree how to confirm apostles.
• We can't agree if apostles still exist.

This problem doesn't just exist with us. It's one of the reason the Church stopped calling people "apostles," and have opted for more specific terms like "missionary," and "church planter," which do not carry the same possibility of confusion about authority.

It is the whole question of authority that is the problem. So it's similar to the local ground issue. Given an issue which has so much potential for affecting people, there ought to be some kind of general agreement. There is, and it is, generally, Don't call people apostles.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can you explain how the claim to being an apostle puts power in someone's hands?

This is a twisting. It's backwards.

It is God who provides evidences.

[awareness]

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.

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).

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



------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.

1. They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
   
   
2. 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.

[Cal]

The question is, what is the point of believing Lee was an apostle? So that people will accept his teachings and the Church will benefit? People accepted Rick Warren's teachings much more than Lee's. Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life is the best selling non-fiction book of all time. Nobody had to believe that Rick Warren was an apostle for that to happen.

The reason Drake and those like him want people to believe Lee was an apostle is to confer to him the authority to order the Church around, and thus confirm their own decisions to let him define their lives. I.e. misery loves company. Lee couldn't convince enough people by the power of his teachings, so he has to co-opt the authority of an apostle to intimidate people into following him. For this cause he has the willing accomplices like Drake and other stubborn true believers, who say to themselves, If I have to follow Lee then everyone else does too.

Make no mistake, they are not arguing for the existence of latter day apostles for any other reason but to defend the supposed authority of their guy(s).

Again, a common sense view of the Scripture and of history shows us it is very unwise to consider people like Witness Lee to be apostles. The Church-at-large understands this. Those that think otherwise will continue to remain fringe operators, and people will continue to be hurt because of them, which the true believers will sweep under the rug and rationalize away. I post here to try to somehow push against that.


A few years ago I was in a small town in California and was approached by three young Mormon men. They were very nice and by the end I was almost convinced they were true Christians, and they might have been. They were humble, loving and genuine. I have to say they were more pleasant than I was. But they were convinced that they were right and Jesus was not God. Still they weren't exclusive. They believed we were all in the same family of God.

I didn't think of this at the time, but if I ever get into another conversation like that I'm going to ask, "If we are all believers, all God's children, then what makes you think 95% of the believers are wrong about Jesus and only you are right? What gives that reassurance? "

Of course the only reason they believed it was that was what they were used to, what they identified with, and no one wants to admit that the beliefs that define them on the deepest level are wrong.

LCMers are the same way. What gives them the reassurance that apostles with the kind of authority they confer to Lee still exist? The overwhelming majority of the Church doesn't believe it. So what makes the LCM right and others in the vast majority wrong? Do they really believe they understand the Bible so much better than everyone else?

So to me they are just like those Mormon boys. They believe what they believe because confirming what they've always believed is easier than admitting they might be mistaken. There is probably an element of wanting to be special as well. But either way, the odds of the LCM being right about its fringe beliefs are about the same as that the Mormons are right about Jesus not being God. Slim to none.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The question is, what is the point of believing Lee was an apostle? So that people will accept his teachings and the Church will benefit?

The reason Drake and those like him want people to believe Lee was an apostle is to confer to him the authority to order the Church around, and thus confirm their own decisions to let him define their lives.

Make no mistake, they are not arguing for the existence of latter day apostles for any other reason but to defend the supposed authority of their guy(s).

Yes, this is exactly the point, and let me add to it.

Apostolic authority, aka deputy authority, is used in exclusive systems like the Plymouth Brethren, Nee's Little Flock, Lee's Recovery, and the Blendeds LSM to wield great power and advantage to silence critics. Lee used his authority to introduce all sorts of failed businesses, cover up for criminal activity of his sons, silence whistleblowers, eliminate perceived rivals, etc.

Unfortunately, Lee's authority was not just for building up, (ref. 2 Cor 10.8) but also for tearing down those who got in his way.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, this is exactly the point, and let me add to it.

Apostolic authority, aka deputy authority, is used in exclusive systems like the Plymouth Brethren, Nee's Little Flock, Lee's Recovery, and the Blendeds LSM to wield great power and advantage to silence critics. Lee used his authority to introduce all sorts of failed businesses, cover up for criminal activity of his sons, silence whistleblowers, eliminate perceived rivals, etc.

Unfortunately, Lee's authority was not just for building up, (ref. 2 Cor 10.8) but also for tearing down those who got in his way.

I see a big difference between apostolic authority and deputy authority. You don't see the writers (epistles and gospels) puffed up with pride. That being pride is a characteristic deputy authority produces. There's similarities between deputy authority and divine right of kings (as seen in European history). Each claim to be accountable only to God and not to man.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, this is exactly the point, and let me add to it.

Apostolic authority, aka deputy authority, is used in exclusive systems like the Plymouth Brethren, Nee's Little Flock, Lee's Recovery, and the Blendeds LSM to wield great power and advantage to silence critics. Lee used his authority to introduce all sorts of failed businesses, cover up for criminal activity of his sons, silence whistleblowers, eliminate perceived rivals, etc.

Unfortunately, Lee's authority was not just for building up, (ref. 2 Cor 10.8) but also for tearing down those who got in his way.

"Apostolic authority" is a different doctrine than apostles.

I agree that LSM's doctrine on "Apostolic authority" is completely bogus.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by awareness

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.


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).


If Lee was the apostle, what are the Blendeds? Are they Apostolic succession?

Harold



------------------------------------

In the word of God there is no such thing as Apostolic succession,there were no successors to the original 12 Apostles,appointed by the Lord Jesus or any apostles appointed by the 12 to be their successors. When you read the epistles of Peter,Paul,Jude,John they state that it was the last days and evil workers were already making inroads into the church,and Paul said after his departure that grevious wolves would come in not sparing the flock. When studying early church history its clear. And the prophetic revelation of the seven churches shows a steady decline. I'm not trying to stir up anything, just my take on Apostles.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JB482

In the word of God there is no such thing as Apostolic succession,there were no successors to the original 12 Apostles,appointed by the Lord Jesus or any apostles appointed by the 12 to be their successors. When you read the epistles of Peter,Paul,Jude,John they state that it was the last days and evil workers were already making inroads into the church,and Paul said after his departure that grevious wolves would come in not sparing the flock. When studying early church history its clear. And the prophetic revelation of the seven churches shows a steady decline. I'm not trying to stir up anything, just my take on Apostles.

That's my view as well. The apostles were chosen by the Lord. Paul was evidently chosen post-resurrection, and this was affirmed by the others.

The apostles wrote the NT. (Luke, Matthew, Mark were written under the aegis of the apostles; some say that parts of Paul, Peter, and John were likewise written 'en amanuensis' as well [on behalf of]).

Compare that to today's self-styled and self-appointed 'apostles'. No comparison whatsoever. Jesus taught, "if you want to be great in the kingdom, claim to be the least"; the ones who claim for themselves apostolic privilege are by definition the least of all, because they claim to greatness.

The New Apostolic Reformation is a good example. I think one of them was once a Lee acolyte.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

The New Apostolic Reformation is a good example. I think one of them was once a Lee acolyte.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

Aron,

Connect the "acolyte" dots for us.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Connect the "acolyte" dots for us.

Drake

You know, I can't remember his name, just that EM & RK sniggered when someone else had the temerity to call themselves apostles, all the while ignoring the exact same issue with their apostle WL.

One other detail, which greatly added to their mirth, is that when this bunch (inc. the ex-LC'er) decided to be apostles, they had no one qualified to 'anoint' them, so they knelt in a circle and anointed themselves! The conference speaker and the front-row elders all chuckled at each other.

Someone else may remember more...

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

That's my view as well. The apostles were chosen by the Lord. Paul was evidently chosen post-resurrection, and this was affirmed by the others.

my view as well...most importantly "it is written" but I can't remember off hand what scripture(s) say there is no apostle after Paul.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JB482

In the word of God there is no such thing as Apostolic succession,there were no successors to the original 12 Apostles,appointed by the Lord Jesus or any apostles appointed by the 12 to be their successors. When you read the epistles of Peter,Paul,Jude,John they state that it was the last days and evil workers were already making inroads into the church,and Paul said after his departure that grevious wolves would come in not sparing the flock. When studying early church history its clear. And the prophetic revelation of the seven churches shows a steady decline. I'm not trying to stir up anything, just my take on Apostles.

I agree with this JB and it is worth repeating.

Apostolic succession is a serious error in understanding the Lord's NT arrangement.

Drake