Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Look at this we all can agree (You, Me and Nee) that a Pope is not scriptural, but the gift of Apostles is.

I think you meant Paul charged Titus to speak with all authority.

Personally I believe that verse in Titus disputes the whole concept of "apostolic authority" since the word "all" should include every form of authority. Since Paul says very clearly that he never claimed "apostolic authority" it would be hard to then justify his telling Titus to claim it. On the flip side it would be hypocritical of Paul to tell Titus to speak "with all authority" if he didn't also. Hence I find it untenable to say that this term "all authority" can refer to some kind of "apostolic authority". Therefore, I interpret "all authority" to refer to the authority that the Lord gave to the two or three that gather together in his name in Matthew 18.

Where did Paul specifically say he never claimed "apostolic authority?"

The reason I push against the idea that the Apostolic gift still exists is:

(1) We can't even agree what it consists of.
(2) Some, given the freedom to define apostles as they wish, create monsters like the MOTA.

It seems to me what the Church has done, by default, is to define apostles as church planters and missionaries. Certainly the idea of some ongoing care and advisement is there. But not the idea of control and lording which clearly exists in the LCM. Paul advised churches to listen to him, even begged them, but he was never overbearing about it. He was willing to let a church follow its own path rather than try to strong-arm them.

The classic example is what happened in the Midwest ten or so years ago. Rather than allow some Midwest churches to follow their own leading, the Blendeds condemned them and came in and installed new churches in Columbus and Toronto.

This also illustrates a big problem with one-church-one-city. There is only room for one, and the LCM is more than willing to discredit other "squatters." Which as far as I'm concerned shows the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

[Drake]

Igzy>”So it is neither a fallacy nor a cop-out to point out that the LCM view on apostles is not shared by the vast majority of Christians or churches, which my "99%" argument was intended to point out, which I'm sure fair-minded observers understood. You as usual could not pass up the opportunity to turn something into a red herring, which I'm sure fair-minded observers also noticed.”

I understand what your point was perfectly. Nevertheless, the way you presented it was a fallacy in argumentum as was my tongue in cheek response. You cannot know what 99% of the Church thinks anymore than I could know what any of those groups think. Just throwing out meaningless statics might shore your argument up in your mind though.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>”So it is neither a fallacy nor a cop-out to point out that the LCM view on apostles is not shared by the vast majority of Christians or churches, which my "99%" argument was intended to point out, which I'm sure fair-minded observers understood. You as usual could not pass up the opportunity to turn something into a red herring, which I'm sure fair-minded observers also noticed.”

I understand what your point was perfectly. Nevertheless, the way you presented it was a fallacy in argumentum as was my tongue in cheek response. You cannot know what 99% of the Church thinks anymore than I could know what any of those groups think. Just throwing out meaningless statics might shore your argument up in your mind though.

Drake

Like I said, you appealed to a red herring. I think intelligent people can realize the LCM's view of apostleship is in the tiny minority. Describing it as 1% is probably very generous. It's probably closer to 0.0001%. So count your blessings and quit griping.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Like I said, you appealed to a red herring. I think intelligent people can realize the LCM's view of apostleship is in the tiny minority. Describing it as 1% is probably very generous. It's probably closer to 0.0001%. So count your blessings and quit griping.

Griping? Heavens no.

I’m just not willing to let weak arguments stand up without a shred of supporting evidence. Your stats above fall into the same fallacy category.

I attempted to have a go at that with levity but I see you prefer candor... so there you have it. Happy to accommodate.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Griping? Heavens no.

I’m just not willing to let weak arguments stand up without a shred of supporting evidence. Your stats above fall into the same fallacy category.

I attempted to have a go at that with levity but I see you prefer candor... so there you have it.

Drake

Oh, I'm having fun with you for sure.

Again, the LCM view of apostleship is a fringe, tiny minority view. I stand by that statement. That was my central point which is not a fallacy and which you are desperately trying to obfuscate.

If you haven't figured out that your views are fringe you probably still think one day tens of millions of Christians will be pray-reading the HWMR. Dream on.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I attempted to have a go at that with levity but I see you prefer candor... so there you have it. Happy to accommodate.

Drake

Folks get fired these days for "lacking candor."

Too bad that same standard never applied to LSM.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Folks get fired these days for "lacking candor."

Too bad that same standard never applied to LSM.

Wasn't John Ingalls fired for "lack of candor"?

[Drake]

Igzy>”In your case, Drake, I'm not sure you believe any of the stuff you say. I tend to think it's mostly just a game to you, a way to pass the time.”

Nope.

Appreciate your explanation Igzy. I believe Truth is absolute. I believe when experience leads it becomes a filter to Truth. The kind of Bible you have then depends on the kind of person you are shaped by experience. Nevertheless many people do interpret the Bible and the truths therein based on experience. I don’t. It is not good practice to lead with something that is unreliable and limited. It has its place but not in establishing Biblical Truth.

On this quote above allow me to clarify.

Remove all doubt from your mind. If I am not sure about something I will indicate or qualify it as I did with the question on Titus Chu. When I state something in a back and forth rest assured I believe it. I don’t like to waste time. Do I allow room to be persuaded ? Certainly. Do I hold deep convictions about most of the things I speak of? Certainly. Do I disengage when I think a fellow poster is not discussing in good faith? Almost always.

But again, appreciate the conversation.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

The kind of Bible you have then depends on the kind of person you are shaped by experience.

This is true whether you want it to be or not. Cannot be avoided. You believe the things you do largely because of the type of person you are. We all do. That's why the Bible doesn't tell us to eliminate ourselves from the equation, it says seek to be pure in heart.

God can't teach you anything if you don't know something first.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Where did Paul specifically say he never claimed "apostolic authority?"

1Thess 1:3-6 -- this section talks about all the things Paul didn't do, and they describe false brothers and those that love the preeminence. It is the only reference in the NT that I can find that specifically refers to "apostolic authority".

Originally Posted by Igzy

The reason I push against the idea that the Apostolic gift still exists is:

(1) We can't even agree what it consists of.
(2) Some, given the freedom to define apostles as they wish, create monsters like the MOTA.

It seems to me what the Church has done, by default, is to define apostles as church planters and missionaries. Certainly the idea of some ongoing care and advisement is there. But not the idea of control and lording which clearly exists in the LCM. Paul advised churches to listen to him, even begged them, but he was never overbearing about it. He was willing to let a church follow its own path rather than try to strong-arm them.

The classic example is what happened in the Midwest ten or so years ago. Rather than allow some Midwest churches to follow their own leading, the Blendeds condemned them and came in and installed new churches in Columbus and Toronto.

This also illustrates a big problem with one-church-one-city. There is only room for one, and the LCM is more than willing to discredit other "squatters." Which as far as I'm concerned shows the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

Well, that is one way to respond. I have chosen instead to look more closely at the NT and that is why I latched onto Matthew 18.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, that is one way to respond. I have chosen instead to look more closely at the NT and that is why I latched onto Matthew 18.

ZNP,

I agree with this.

Our starting point should always be the Bible as you state above and as C.S.Lewis said pursue the truth wherever it leads.


Igzy,

Your starting point is your experience or what you believe and hence you trace into the Bible from that starting point. Therefore, the views you have stated about apostles is not rounded out according to the scriptural revelation but selective and piecemeal leading to erroneous ideas about the end of apostles, the Bible replacing their function, etc. This is further validated by what seems to be some kind of fear about where truth might lead causing you to veer from a scriptural discussion to an anecdotal one. I know you don’t see it that way but every time you interject about others motives and fear where the conversation might lead you expose your own agenda driven motive and not the pursuit of truth wherever it leads. I challenge you to drop that agenda and let the truth lead wherever it will. Don’t worry, no one is trying to force you to change your beliefs and reasonable observers can make up thier own mind about what makes more sense.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

Your starting point is your experience or what you believe and hence you trace into the Bible from that starting point.

I believe experience and perspective, both personally and historically, are critical to Biblical interpretation. I don't believe Scripture should be interpreted in a vacuum. I believe the lessons of history and of observing the fruit of views and practices are crucial to a healthy application of Scripture, especially to what we should admit are vague principles like apostleship and church ground.

Many of the LCM's fringe beliefs have been shown over time to be unhealthy, to the observation of many. What I have seen about you and others is that you simply pretend these unhealthy fruits don't exist. What you should be doing is applying a healthy skepticism to those LCM views (or anyone's) which are based on debatable principles and which produce questionable fruit.

I've noticed some people want certainty about every little item in the Bible. If they can't get it, they pretend their best guess is certain. For example, we can't for sure say what an apostle is, but they pretend to know exactly what one is. Then they force that view upon themselves and others. Why not just say, 'we don't know for sure, so let's not go to extremes'? The same goes for church ground.

If anyone on this board thinks that they are going to, at this late date, nail down and settle once and for all that they know what all this stuff means then they are dreaming and probably a little crazy. Greater minds and purer hearts than ours have been trying to for centuries. There is a wisdom in the general consensus, and it says that some of this stuff we just can't nail down for sure. Fringe groups like the LCM pretend they have, and thus do damage.

This is why I always return to general ideas and principles, while others are scratching through the details. In my opinion they often miss the forest for the trees. The sad thing about the LCM defenders is that they aren't even defending their own beliefs. They are defending what someone else told them they should believe, thus being "good brothers," like those Mormon boys who faithfully defended their belief that Jesus wasn't God.

In your case, Drake, I'm not sure you believe any of the stuff you say. I tend to think it's mostly just a game to you, a way to pass the time.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,
I know you don’t see it that way but every time you interject about others motives and fear where the conversation might lead you expose your own agenda driven motive and not the pursuit of truth wherever it leads. I challenge you to drop that agenda and let the truth lead wherever it will.

Drake,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is baloney.

Yes, I realize you would like everyone to pretend, as you do, that nothing bad ever happened in the LCM and so such facts should not be part of the discussion. That would be very much to your advantage. We all realize this.

You talk about the pursuit of truth. But what I see in you is the avoidance of truth. And as long as you to continue to deny or downplay the damage done by the LCM system, as far as I'm concerned your appeal to "pursuit of truth" rings very hollow. The truth includes all the facts. None of them can or should be ignored. I have nothing hide. Ask me anything except personal details and I'll answer.

What do you think caused all the problems in the LCM? Do you really think it's because all the victims were "not pure" or whatever? Their stories matter and I will not sweep them under the rug. They are part of the whole picture. You want us to compartmentalize those things as if we can somehow determine truth simply by studying scripture. But the fact is some practices of the LCM, though they might be somehow justifiable by a certain view of scripture, are not verifiable. There are other interpretations that are just as valid. So the fruit they produce should be part of the discussion.

I have never hidden my agenda, though yours is foggy. My agenda is to help people be freed from a controlling organization. If someone likes the LCM and wants to stay there, I have no beef with that. But if anyone thinks or teaches that leaving the LCM is somehow essentially evil or wrong, they are going the hear from me. You can count on that.

If you don't like that, it's too bad. That's what I feel called to do here. If you think I'm misled I suggest you pray for me.

[Drake]

-1

Igzy,

The truth is bigger than you... or me.. or anyone else.

However, if you want to interpret scriptural truth through the filter of your experience that is your prerogative. Have at it. But for the sake of others I will make the observation when I see it. Sorry that angers or bothers you as my intention is not to cause you any discomfort.

Regards,
Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Igzy,

The truth is bigger than you... or me.. or anyone else.

However, if you want to interpret scriptural truth through the filter of your experience that is your prerogative. Have at it. But for the sake of others I will make the observation when I see it. Sorry that angers or bothers you as my intention is not to cause you any discomfort.

Regards,
Drake

And I will point out when you are interpreting scripture in a vacuum, and not adequately examining the fruit of fringe doctrines whose validity is far from certain, particular ones that subject people to lording control.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And I will point out when you are interpreting scripture in a vacuum, and not adequately examining the fruit of fringe doctrines whose validity is far from certain, particular ones that subject people to lording control.

If by vacuum you mean you want me to interpret the truth of the Bible through the filter of YOUR experience... well, it ain’t gonna happen. I will consider your point of view until I see you discarding the Bible in favor of your private interpretation. One thing you can be sure of, I will not let your doctrines, fringe or otherwise, to lord control over me.

Thanks
Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And I will point out when you are interpreting scripture in a vacuum, and not adequately examining the fruit of fringe doctrines whose validity is far from certain, particular ones that subject people to lording control.

How can one not interpret scripture in a vacuum? If I grew up in the LSM churches or it was all I knew - I wonder where I would be today. Without the Holy Spirit in us aren't we destined to see all things through the vacuum of our fleshly minds?

Where the LSM churches disassociates themselves from other evangelical denominations is the expectation (some could argue for a stronger word than expectation) of "group think" that is derived from the spoken word of Witness Lee. Any diversion from Lee is a cause for alarm - which manifests itself in many different ways.

Do many LSM church members genuinely believe they've found THE way? I think so, from my experience. But then again, I'd answer in the affirmative if the same question was asked about a Jehovah Witness, Morman, a member of Westboro Baptist Church (I actually don't know any of these guys, but have learned a bit about them)....

In mainstream evangelical Christianity, whether non-denominational, baptist, methodist, etc - I have not seen or heard of the thought that 'it is my denominations way or the highway' - actually quite the opposite. I've had many discussions around this thought with different believers and they've also agreed with my observations. I think that is why the LSM churches stick out like a sore thumb for those looking to place a "cult" label.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

The truth is bigger than you... or me.. or anyone else.

However, if you want to "interpret scriptural truth" through the filter of your experience that is your prerogative. Have at it. But for the sake of others I will make the observation when I see it. Sorry that angers or bothers you as my intention is not to cause you any discomfort.

This forum only exists because Nee, Lee, and the Blendeds interpret scriptural truth thru the filter of their own experiences. For example, Nee's own nativistic views turned his teachings against all foreign missionaries, thus elevating his own preeminence in the Little Flock movement. He should have been a debtor to love, that is brotherly love, and appreciate those who crossed the ocean to bring the gospel to China, but instead he used his own nationalistic "experiences" to interpret scripture and to discredit all the missionaries.

Sadly, the very point we have been trying to make with you is that the "truth is bigger than you" and the LSM.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1Thess 1:3-6 -- this section talks about all the things Paul didn't do, and they describe false brothers and those that love the preeminence. It is the only reference in the NT that I can find that specifically refers to "apostolic authority".

Sorry I don't follow your scriptural reference. Please quote the verses that support apostolic authority.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry I don't follow your scriptural reference. Please quote the verses that support apostolic authority.

1Thess 2: 3 For our exhortation is not of error, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:

There is a clear contrast in this section between those who spoke in error, uncleanness and / or guile. I would say that this forum has done a nice job of exposing the error in WL and LSM, the uncleanness, and the guile.

4 but even as we have been approved of God to be intrusted with the gospel, so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God who proveth our hearts.

Once again, a contrast between the sycophants, the puppet elders, etc and the apostle Paul.

5 For neither at any time were we found using words of flattery, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness, God is witness; 6 nor seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ.

Now we have discussed the aspect of covetousness that is common to false prophets (Judas, Balaam, and WL). We have discussed WL's boasting "who said this? Lee, Lee, that's who" etc. So the context of Paul saying that he might have claimed apostolic authority (but didn't) is the same context where he said he hadn't done any of these other things either. This is the only mention of "apostolic authority" in the NT. You don't see Peter claiming it, you don't see John claiming it, you don't see Paul claiming it.

But obviously someone is. Diotrophese who loves to have the preeminence uses his "authority" to reject those from John. False brothers in Galatians try to bring the saints into bondage (under their authority). Judaizers from James intimidate Peter into not walking according to the truth. And, here in this section we can infer that those speaking in error, uncleanness and guile do this as well.

Then Paul charges Titus to speak "with all authority". Now the term "all authority" would have to include "apostolic authority" if there were such a thing. But that would be hypocritical for Paul to exhort Titus to use "apostolic authority" if he has said he didn't. On the other hand, if Paul is exhorting Titus to speak "with all authority" then surely he must have done so too. Therefore I conclude that "apostolic authority" is a bogus term made up by false brothers and false prophets. No doubt, authority has been given to us, and Paul says the same, so it is difficult to debate whether or not there is such a thing since Apostle's have been given authority, the same authority promised to all believers in Matthew 18, Ephesians 1, etc. So instead of being dragged into that swamp Paul makes it clear he has not claimed this, nor has he done any of the other things these false brothers do.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1Thess 2: 3 . . .

Thanks bro ZNP, now I get it. You cited 1 Thess 1:3-6, I guess by mistake. And as a result I was greatly confused. I'm glad I asked.

v. 6 IS interesting, cuz Paul didn't seek glory, or use his power of apostleship to exercise demands on the Thessalonians.

As I've stated, I never saw Lee as an Apostle, but only a self made Bible teacher. But, even if he was the Apostle in his own mind, and in the minds of his blind sycophants, he and they, had to glossed over those verses.

Good catch brother.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The reason I push against the idea that the Apostolic gift still exists is:

(1) We can't even agree what it consists of.
(2) Some, given the freedom to define apostles as they wish, create monsters like the MOTA.

I think we can all agree that an apostle is a "sent one" who has been sent by God to deliver a message.

Now I realize that seems to overlap with a prophet, but only superficially. For example, I was once walking across campus and I had one gospel tract left and I wanted to hand it out. So I was praying. I passed many people without handing it out and became more and more desperate in my prayer. Finally I arrived at the office I was heading for and in the waiting room there was another student so I handed her the tract and said "here, this is for you". She looked at the title "Life at best is very brief like the falling of a leaf" and said "That is appropriate, I just learned I have lung cancer".

I could share a number of other experiences, but to me there is a distinction between being sent by the Lord to deliver a message, vs speaking for the Lord vs evangelizing vs teaching.

The reason I am not willing to dismiss Apostles as a gift is because in Eph 4 it says these gifts perfect all the saints to grow into a full grown man. To me that means we all can function in all of these gifts. We may not be "gifted" but we can still function.

To me the "gift" of apostle is when they don't want to receive your message. Paul makes it very clear that he is revealed to be an apostle by delivering the message to those who very much did not want to receive it. For example, just about everyone can hit a layup in basketball. But what if Lebron James doesn't want you to make the shot? That changes everything.

Another example: my brother was getting married and asked if I would read a verse from the Bible during the ceremony. Again, I put quite a lot of prayer into this. Prior to the wedding I was driving with my Dad who asked about this. I told him I was desperately trying to edit it down because it was taking me 5 minutes. He freaked out, 5 minutes! Well as soon as I started to speak he began to signal my two brothers to yank me out of there. Since he was sitting on the front row everyone in the church could see this (except me). It was incredibly quiet, everyone was on the edge of their seat to see what was about to happen as my older brother, standing behind me was leaning in to yank me out. I was talking about how my father's children expressed him and as they were just about to cut me off I said "and we'll even let you see things he doesn't want you to see". Well I got to share my full burden and it was very memorable and I heard about it for years afterwards.

So, I also use my experience when studying the word.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think we can all agree that an apostle is a "sent one" who has been sent by God to deliver a message.

Okay, so let's just call them "sent ones" so we won't confuse them with Peter, James, John and Paul, and slide down the slippery slope until, surprise!, we have a MOTA and a Pope again.

PLEASE NOTE: A lot of time I say things to make a point. You don't have to take me literally all the time. If you want to have apostles, have them. Knock yourself out with them. Just don't come crying to me when someone you love ends up submitting to some "apostle" who is telling them what to wear and where to live and who their daddy is.

Seems like we would have learned by now to avoid that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think we can all agree that an apostle is a "sent one" who has been sent by God to deliver a message.

No we can't. Apostles are way more than what the word apostle means.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

No we can't. Apostles are way more than what the word apostle means.

That is the cause of the confusion. The word refers to a gift, it also refers to a function in the church, and it refers to individual people.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is the cause of the confusion. The word refers to a gift, it also refers to a function in the church, and it refers to individual people.

So Lee milked the confusion, and so became The Apostle? And those in the LCM are confused? And I was out because I wouldn't be confused?

And the FTT was/is a confusion factory?