Apostles

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

[Cal]

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.

[Cal]

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

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?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

http://www.lsmradio.com/hearing-of-f...an04whatis.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?

[ZNPaaneah]

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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

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.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

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

[aron]

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]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

[OBW]

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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

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!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

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...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

He taught that the word apostle means sent one. if the Lord sends you to speak to your friend, or coworker, or family member, then you are by definition a sent one. So all of us at some point or another operate as apostles. However, that doesn't mean we are "gifts" to the Body. The gifts were given to perfect the Body. Gifts operate by training others to do the same thing they do. Evangelists train you to evangelize. Shepherds train you to shepherd. Teachers train you to teach.

I think we have done a reasonable job in this thread showing that this definition of Apostle is quite inadequate. I like my analogy with pioneer species, an apostle is gifted to go into an area where there are not christians and churches and change the environment to a Christian ecosystem. If they are successful their gift will become marginalized and recede into the background.

So WL saw himself as "The Apostle of the Age" that could train and perfect all the others to be mini apostles.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Gifts operate by training others to do the same thing they do. Evangelists train you to evangelize. Shepherds train you to shepherd. Teachers train you to teach.

I realize that we've been taught that. But lately I've begun to wonder if it is really true. Are we evangelized so that we will evangelize? Or are we evangelized so that we will be evangelized? Are we taught so that we will teach, or are we taught so that we will learn and do?

I note that Jesus told a few to "teach them to obey." He said to make them followers.

Now I realize that if there are to be more evangelists, then someone must either be gifted by the Holy Spirit to be an evangelist, or . . . . I think that the definition of being a gift is just that, to be gifted. And since it is not a matter of just doing what comes naturally (even if it sometimes seems partly that way) but of what the Spirit gifts us to do, then who needs someone else to train you to be your gift?

And, of course, the obvious flaw in that view is that teachers may be gifted at teaching, but they have to learn what it is they are going to teach. So there is a learning part, maybe to a whole lot of the so-called gifts. In other words, there is an aspect of being given a gift, but there is also at least some times an aspect of training that goes with it. You don't just get the gift of preaching. There have been some people who just had a knack for saying the right kinds of things and got followings. One of those was some kid back in the 50s (I think) who dumped it all when he grew up because it was just something natural. Can't remember the name, but it was a big, national thing at the time.

Obviously I'm not clear on this. But despite the teaching we got in those verses in Ephesians about the Big Letter whatevers making little letter whatevers of the same kind, it doesn't actually say that. It just says they perfect the rest of us for the work of ministry. I wonder if we are still stuck in a presumption that "ministry" is an automatic reference back to the immediate items before rather than a whole lot of things, including the ministry of being righteous in your daily life (rather than running people off the road and "checking" about it so that you can be right about it (really need a tongue-in-cheek emoticon)).

In other words, we are perfected to be what we were intended to be. It takes things like evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc., to do that. But is what we are intended to be simply evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc? Or is it image-bearers. People expressing God in their whole life, not just their "religious" or "spiritual" life. In their letting people in as they enter the freeway as much or more than their "I've got a lot of knowledge about God" life.

Now I realize that I only quoted the little part that I spoke on above. But I might not entirely characterize the role of the apostle in the manner you did, but pretty close. I believe that it is even true of some other gifts. Things like signs and miracles. Or tongues. On the day of Pentecost, Peter and the others started speaking. They spoke clearly in many different languages that others there understood. That did two things. First it made a clear presentation of whatever they were saying (the gospel) to everyone. Second, it was clearly something beyond the natural capabilities of these people and it demonstrated a power beyond the mortal.

Then it was repeated with the Samaritans, and again at the house of Cornelius. It is not clear that these two were as much for the Samaritans and Gentiles as it was for the Jews to accept that God really was including them.

And besides the discussion in 1 Corinthians, are tongues mentioned again? That does not answer the obvious questions, but it does at least raise the question. The only place besides those three in Acts (if I am remembering properly) is in 1 Corinthians. And they are obviously going crazy with it. Not in a very Christian way. Makes you wonder whether Paul was sort of hinting at something when he suggested that they would eventually "pass away." Not trying to throw barbs at the Pentecostals/charismatics, but maybe the idea that it is some regular, ongoing, "everybody needs this" kind of thing is not right. Maybe it is a gift when needed. Like when there is a communication issue, or maybe part of that pioneering thing you were talking about. (Those people who can't even speak my language -- so why am I going to try and understand their "God" stuff in their language -- suddenly speak like natives. It happened only once, but it makes you a little less skeptical about that "God" thing they are talking about.)

Gifts as needed. Not necessarily as all-the-time abilities. Although some may be.

Just thinking out loud.