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

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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?

An apostle was commissioned by the Head of the body. An apostle could be considered an ambassador of Christ. Just to say you are "sent" means very little, and it is a shame to demean the apostleship to some catchy slogan based on the meaning of the Greek word.

[Cal]

Please excuse the multiple posts but stuff keeps popping into my head.

Suppose I tell you that Rick Warren is a really good teacher with some important things to say for this generation and that I think everyone should listen to him.

Okay, now suppose I tell you Rick Warren is an apostle. What have I really added? Basically I have engaged in spiritual arm twisting to try to get you to respect Rick Warren. I have no idea whether he is an apostle or not, and neither does anyone else. Sure he might be "sent," but we all know apostle carries much more meaning that just being sent, even though that's all the word means etymologically. And it's that extra meaning that I'd be trying to leverage if I declared he is an apostle. I'd be trying to give him weight in your eyes so you'll submit to him. But the fact is I have would really not know if I knew what I was talking about when making such claim.

Witness Lee an apostle? Titus Chu? Rick Warren? All these claims are just confusing and confounding. They are unverifiable, unhelpful and potentially damaging.

As time passes I respect mainstream Christianity more and more. There's a reason people in general don't use these terms, and it's a wise one.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

An apostle was commissioned by the Head of the body. An apostle could be considered an ambassador of Christ. Just to say you are "sent" means very little, and it is a shame to demean the apostleship to some catchy slogan based on the meaning of the Greek word.

Nonsense. I'm not demeaning the true apostles, just the claim that we have the same thing today.

[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.

[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

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.

But that is not the point. It is you who are saying there are no more apostles after the original authors, and the writings of the Bible are completed. I agree the writings of the Bible are completed, but see no reason to believe that in all of church history, after the apostles' time, the Head of the body has stopped "giving gifts to men, and He gave some apostles."

Poster Norm, in one of his earliest posts, said, "to me, WL is an apostle." I know others who say, "TC is an apostle." Brothers in Germany felt, "JS is an apostle." Brothers in Brazil feel, "DYL is an apostle."

The record of the New Testament shows that no Apostle is perfect. Peter blundered a few times, and all church history has learned about them. What is significant concerning the apostles is their calling and commission by the Head of the body. Paul also gave the signs of the apostle in 2 Cor 12.12 as a test to those who claim the apostleship, but are not.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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?

No. I'm saying that the possibility of being able to write Scripture places all the apostles before the canon was closed on a higher plain than anyone who might be considered an apostle after the canon was closed. After the canon closed the potential authority of any apostle was decreased.

But that is not the point. It is you who are saying there are no more apostles after the original authors, and the writings of the Bible are completed. I agree the writings of the Bible are completed, but see no reason to believe that in all of church history, after the apostles' time, the Head of the body has stopped "giving gifts to men, and He gave some apostles."

It's not just me who says the age of the apostles is over. It's most Christian theologians. And I did give you a reason--we have no way of objectively deciding who is an apostle (without signs and miracles). Further, contention over who is "the man" causes great problems as we've seen. Excessive loyalty and ideas like "being one with the minstry" spring from this.

Besides, what are the signs of an apostle. Isn't one them being able to work miracles?

"The signs, indeed, of the apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds (2 Corinthians 12:12, YLT)."

Did Nee, Lee, or the others work such apostolic miracles?

Poster Norm, in one of his earliest posts, said, "to me, WL is an apostle." I know others who say, "TC is an apostle." Brothers in Germany felt, "JS is an apostle." Brothers in Brazil feel, "DYL is an apostle."

Sounds mighty subjective. The problem with thinking someone is an apostle is that it carries with it the expectation (almost the demand) that others think it as well. This causes contention. Given that we have no way of confirming apostleship, except the standard of 2 Cor 12:12 (and no one mentioned has lived up to that standard) I feel our considering some today apostles causes more problems than it solves.

It seems you are simply insistent that apostles can exist today so we should believe they do exist. But the latter does not follow from the former.

Please tell me.

1. How do we recognize apostles? (please consider 2 Cor 12:12)
2. Name some of the apostles on earth for the last 150 years. Please include some not in the LRC movement.
3. Who is an apostle today?

[Cal]

Before we can continue, I think we need to define the term "apostle" What does it mean? The word itself means "sent one". Ohio, gave this definition.

An apostle was commissioned by the Head of the body. An apostle could be considered an ambassador of Christ.

This definition is hardly helpful, however. We are all commissioned by the Head of the Body, and we all can be considered ambassadors.

So I ask the question again. What is an apostle? What does he do? I know what set the first century apostles apart. But what about today?

[Cal]

One characteristic of apostles is that they had extraordinary divine authority. Paul could directly correct a church because he was an apostle. I don't think people exist today in the Body of Christ who can walk into a church and assume authority. Paul, prudently, tempered this authority and didn't abuse it. But he did claim to have it.

Does anyone have such authority today?

Isn't it the idea that Lee had such authority which led to so many LRC problems?

[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?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

you ... are saying there are no more apostles after the original authors, and the writings of the Bible are completed. I agree the writings of the Bible are completed, but see no reason to believe that in all of church history, after the apostles' time, the Head of the body has stopped "giving gifts to men, and He gave some apostles."

The title of this thread is "Combating LC Arguments". This recent set of interchanges between Igzy & Ohio highlights, for me, the peril of internet discussion. The Bible goes blank, and we are left with logic. Igzy's leads one way; Ohio goes another.

Paul said he was an apostle. This was confirmed by the 12, or at least not denied; but who was an apostle after Paul, and John and Peter were gone? The Bible doesn't say. It doesn't say "there will be more" and it doesn't say "there will not be more".

So Igzy and Ohio and the rest of us are left with our logic. I go with Igzy here: the mass of christianity has not recognized the title of apostle since the Bible concluded. Catholics think the pope is, the Mormons think their boss is an apostle, and the LCs think Mssrs Nee & Lee were. But there is no consensus, so it is really moot.

Combating LC arguments comes from shared acceptance (God is; God is good; God loved us and sent His Son; God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day; etc).

Who is or is not an apostle will play into the enemy's hands and create rancor among the troops (we are, believe it or not, The Army of God). So the trinity, and the rapture, and apostleship, and other subjects not clearly stated and open to interpretation might best not be argued, but loosely held.

Which of course impinges on most of my current "theories"....

Ah well.

[ZNPaaneah]

Let me see if I can understand this discussion:

Igzy is saying that "The 12 Apostles" are no longer on the Earth and the Bible is complete. We are no longer writing scripture.

I think everyone agrees with that.

Ohio is saying that God gave gifts to man, and one of those gifts was apostleship, and that these gifts were given to perfect man. I think we can all agree with that.

Igzy is saying that this teaching of Apostleship has caused all kinds of harm throughout the church age, WL is only one example, there are others equally heinous. I think we can all agree with that.

Igzy is also saying that because this teaching is causing trouble therefore it is better to say, as most Christians do, that the age of the Apostles is over and there are no more apostles.

I don't agree with that reasoning no more than the use of a knife to commit a crime is a valid reason to abolish knives.

Igzy is arguing that the definition for apostle is far too vague. This is where I would say that you have to make a distinction between "the" apostles and "an" apostle.

Personally I have seen miracles done, so I certainly don't think that is a valid basis to argue that we don't have apostles anymore.

Igzy also argues that most of Christianity agrees with this view that there are no more apostles. Again, that to me is not a valid reason. I am much more interested in what the Bible says.

Two examples of Apostles that I would propose would be Hudson Taylor and Martin Luther.

[Cal]

I didn't say there were no more miracles. I said that 2 Cor 12:12 seems to suggest miracles accompany genuine apostleship. And as far as I know they did not accompany any of the names being tossed around here.

Again, let's define what an apostle is. What does he (or she?) do?

Also, please tell me the advantage to the church of designating someone an apostle. I've heard opinions of who might be an apostle, but nothing definitive. How do these opinions help anyone? What's the point, other than asserting an opinion about someone. I mean if a Christian teacher or leader lends guidance to the church at large, or helps spread the kingdom in a major way, are we required to call them apostles? If not why do it, give that the assessment is largely subjective (outside of signs and miracles.)

[Cal]

The practical issue is not being able to look back in time and say "that person was an apostle." This issue is how to identify current apostles. That's where the problem lies.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

The title of this thread is "Combating LC Arguments". who was an apostle after Paul, and John and Peter were gone? The Bible doesn't say. It doesn't say "there will be more" and it doesn't say "there will not be more".

The Bible may not say WHO were the apostles after the original 12 departed but it does say in Ephesians 4 there would be SOME apostles, etc...
However, I think the church as a religious institution twisted the meaning of Ephesians 4:10-12.

The 'apostles' I have been acquainted with all have an agenda. I am personally acquainted with one who came to my neck of my woods from S Africa around 2003/4. I see soo much parellelism between he & Lee but savier & more cunning than Lee. He has "planted" over 200 churches mostly in S Africa. The 'pastors' teach exactly what he teaches and of course they tithe at least 10 percent of their 'income' from the congregants to the ministry of the 'apostle'. If I saw pureness and complete Truth in what he teaches, I would not have a problem. But he like many out there, twist the Word of God to suit their 'business' needs.

So Igzy and Ohio and the rest of us are left with our logic.

Aww. But Aaron, I stand firm by Faith on 1 Corinthinians 2:16:
For who has known or understood the Mind (the Counsels and Purposes) of the Lord so as to guide and instruct Him and give Him knowledge? But we have the mind of Christ (the Messiah) and do hold the thoughts of His heart. Let not your heart be troubled by Igzy or Ohio's thoughts. We are not all on the same page.

I go with Igzy here: the mass of christianity has not recognized the title of apostle since the Bible concluded.

Among the 'charasmatics' or 'Word of Faith' crowd, there are lots of 'apostles'. Lots!! And most of them are

Catholics think the pope is, the Mormons think their boss is an apostle, and the LCs think Mssrs Nee & Lee were. But there is no consensus, so it is really moot.

It's not as moot for me as it might be for you because some of the threads on this forum have helped me put man's 'church' into perspective. Most 'Christians' have turned the Word of God into a business venture. People pay $$$ to become 'ordained pastors'. People pay $$$ to go to 'bible college'. If you don't pay your 'tithes & offerings', "YOU" are stealing from God!!!! Bad boy/Bad girl!!! "Bring your friends to church!!" I hear over & over. Why? So they can open up their wallets ??? Maybe it's not like that everywhere but it sure is true in the bible belt.

Much of what happened in the LC under Lee's leadership has & continues to happen elsewhere in Christianity. The difference I have noticed is when I was in the LC, following the message, the congregants were given the opportunity to build up the message. At home gatherings, everyone discussed Lee's messages. And when we quoted a scripture or passage, it was as Lee saw it.

In 'degraded' Christianity, the congregants are mute following a sermon. (Lee gave messages, never 'sermons'. :rollingeyes2

That said, I am not an 'island'. I do listen and respect preachers who teach the Word of God because they KNOW Him. I can listen to 2 preachers teach or preach virtually the same thing and one will be anointed, that is be in the Presence of God strongly and the other not. This also does not mean the 'anointed' preacher/teacher is always under the anointing when he/she teaches or preaches.

So the trinity, and the rapture, and apostleship, and other subjects not clearly stated and open to interpretation might best not be argued, but loosely held.

Maybe so Aaron but we should search the scriptures prayerfully to find the answers. God promises He will reveal His Secrets to us and give us understanding ! So search the scriptures ! Ask the Lord for Wisdom & Understanding! He'll give them to you !! Then you can share w/others what the Lord revealed to you and encourage them in the Faith!

Jeremiah 33:2-3
2 “This is what the Lord says—the Lord who made the earth, who formed and established it, whose name is the Lord: 3 Ask me and I will tell you remarkable secrets you do not know about things to come.

Luke 8:9-11
His disciples asked Him what this parable meant. 10 He replied, “You are permitted to understand the secrets[a] of the Kingdom of God. But I use parables to teach the others so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled:

‘When they look, they won’t really see.
When they hear, they won’t understand.’

11 “This is the meaning of the parable: The Seed is God’s word.

One more:

1 Corinthians 2:10
It was to us that God revealed these things by His Spirit. For His Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets.

CMW

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The practical issue is not being able to look back in time and say "that person was an apostle." This issue is how to identify current apostles. That's where the problem lies.

How do you know someone has the gift of evangelism? How do you know someone is a gifted shepherd or teacher? You know them by their fruits.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I didn't say there were no more miracles. I said that 2 Cor 12:12 seems to suggest miracles accompany genuine apostleship. And as far as I know they did not accompany any of the names being tossed around here.

Again, let's define what an apostle is. What does he (or she?) do?

Also, please tell me the advantage to the church of designating someone an apostle. I've heard opinions of who might be an apostle, but nothing definitive. How do these opinions help anyone? What's the point, other than asserting an opinion about someone. I mean if a Christian teacher or leader lends guidance to the church at large, or helps spread the kingdom in a major way, are we required to call them apostles? If not why do it, give that the assessment is largely subjective (outside of signs and miracles.)

I do not see the point in designating anyone anything. Is it helpful to say Billie Graham was an evangelist? Why isn't servant of God sufficient? Though once you agree he was a gifted evangelist you would then look at his work differently. Prior to that you might decide that his approach to the gospel is not for you, but once you decide he was a gift given to the body to perfect the saints you might reevaluate his ministry with the hope of learning and imitating him.

But, I do see a very pronounced danger in teachings that are not based on the word of God but rather are based on the fact that this teaching has been abused or that we have come to a general consensus on this.

Rather I would say that if experience has shown you that a teaching can be abused, then as a mature Christian you are obligated to show much more prudence and forethought in discussing it. Once you realize a teaching can be used to damage saints, then you are no longer speaking the truth in love if you handle this teaching carelessly. This is why we keep knives away from small children.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you know someone has the gift of evangelism? How do you know someone is a gifted shepherd or teacher? You know them by their fruits.

Okay, what are the fruits of apostleship?

Also, what's the difference between an apostle and a missionary?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So far we've had two major topics develop in this thread - Pray-Reading and now "Apostles". I think both topics are worth their own thread. Would anybody have any objection to splitting off these two into two different threads?

That would be helpful.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But, I do see a very pronounced danger in teachings that are not based on the word of God but rather are based on the fact that this teaching has been abused or that we have come to a general consensus on this.

It's not just based on that. It's based on the fact that the first century apostles were special in several ways.

1. They were either with the Lord personally or were the associate of someone who was. (Paul said he had seen the Lord Jesus).

2. They each had the potential of establishing the faith. In fact the primary role of an apostle was to establish the faith.

No one can qualify for 1, and the faith has been established (Jude 3). Therefore apostles of that type are no longer possible.

Again let me reiterate. We are not operating with a solid definition of apostle. This is part of our reason for disagreement.

[Cal]

Controversial Bible Issues

www.BibleIssues.org

ARE THERE STILL APOSTLES TODAY?

By Denver Cheddie

There are people today who claim to be apostles and prophets and actually add these titles to their names. They claim that the 5 fold ministry has been restored. Does the Bible teach that apostles and prophets are to be expected today or were they specifically for the early church? If they were for the early church only, then what do we conclude of the above mentioned persons? Misguided souls or seducers?

Definition

The word apostle means ambassador, someone who was sent on behalf of
another for a specific purpose. The one sent usually carried the full authority
of the sender. Those sent by God with His message were apostles.

Description

The word apostle is used in different ways in the NT. Sometimes it refers to a special group of people who held the office of the apostle (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4: 11). An examination of the Bible reveals a clear distinctness with the original 12, and later, Matthias (Acts 1:26). They were granted special rewards in the New Jerusalem (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 21:14) that no one else could attain. Clearly these 12 apostles were unique. But there were also other apostles who were commissioned by Christ, Paul being the most noteworthy.

In 1 Cor. 15:7, 9 Paul indicates that one of the criteria for being an apostle was to have seen Jesus and been personally commissioned by Him. This was true of the 12 and also Paul. I refer to these as the major apostles.

More broadly, those who worked with these major apostles were also called (minor) apostles. e.g. Barnabas (1 Cor. 9:6).

Function

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone

Contrary to popular opinion the apostles’ job was not to plant churches. This fell under their jurisdiction but was not their primary role. Their main function was to establish the faith. Jesus Christ died once and for all to become the chief cornerstone of the Christian faith (Eph. 2:20). The purpose of the apostles was to establish the faith and build a doctrinal foundation for which the church would be based. They were specially commissioned by God to do this. In John 14:26; 16:12-14, Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would come and reveal to them what they needed to know for this very purpose. In an indirect sense these verses apply to all of us, in that the Holy Spirit teaches us how to apply God’s Word (already written) and brings it to our remembrance. But these words were directly spoken to the apostles who physically heard Jesus. This promise was fulfilled when the apostles wrote what Jesus said and what was yet to be said (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:10, 12). Thus it was important for them to have physically seen Him. Later on Paul was commissioned as an apostle to the Gentiles in the same way Peter was apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2:7).

Every book in the NT was written by an apostle or a close associate of the apostles. To state it loosely, their primary work was to give us the NT writings. Jesus gave us the New Testament (covenant) through His blood, the apostles gave us the New Testament doctrine through their writings and teachings. This is the meaning of Eph. 2:20. Once that foundation has already been laid (Jude 3), it is time to build on it. The foundation does not have to be laid again, anymore than Christ has to die again. Therefore there is no need for apostles today. Now it is time for pastors, evangelists and teachers to build. 1 Cor. 3:5-10 illustrate the difference between an apostle and a teacher. Paul laid the foundation, Apollos built on it.

Thus in the primary sense there are no more apostles. However people who establish churches, heads of denominations etc. may call themselves apostles, they just cannot claim to be infallibly sent by God to bring new revelation to the body of Christ, as were the major apostles of the Bible. Paul’s writings were infallible (1 Cor. 2:13; 14:37; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16 cf. 2 Pet 3:15, 16 where Peter placed Paul’s writing on the same level as the Old Testament).

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy is also saying that because this teaching is causing trouble therefore it is better to say, as most Christians do, that the age of the Apostles is over and there are no more apostles.

I don't agree with that reasoning no more than the use of a knife to commit a crime is a valid reason to abolish knives..

But in a subsequent post you say "We should keep knives out of the hands of children."

I have in the past advocated keeping people away from Paul's writings until they have read the 4 Gospels a few times. Like a thousand or two.

Tongue in cheek, of course; but there is a lot of harm done by people who get all fired up over organizing the church and forget to "love your neighbor". They end up with a biblical container and no God. Just a lot of arguing christians with sharp knives.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy also argues that most of Christianity agrees with this view that there are no more apostles. Again, that to me is not a valid reason. I am much more interested in what the Bible says...

My point was that the Bible doesn't say. Paul said God gave some as apostles. Paul didn't indicate that this was to continue, unbroken, in perpetuity until the Lord's return. Nor did he indicate that at some point it would cease.

But history seems to have shown that it ceased, save for "the desposyni" and the RCC and the Mormons and the Living Stream Ministry crowd and others who all seem to share control issues.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Two examples of Apostles that I would propose would be Hudson Taylor and Martin Luther.

Taylor, like Moody and Graham, seems more like and evangelist.

Luther, along with Wesley, formed large religious organizations and so might be seen (in retrospect) as apostolic. Did they or their conemporaries ever claim such? Or are several centuries of history needed for determination?

Another point against 'apostles today'. We lack perspective. Anyone can claim, but the lens of history is not clear to us. So the wanna-be's trumpet.

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

we should search the scriptures prayerfully to find the answers. God promises He will reveal His Secrets to us and give us understanding ! So search the scriptures ! Ask the Lord for Wisdom & Understanding! He'll give them to you !!
CMW

I get answers; I get understanding. But because my answers are not shared by all I don't hold them as objective truth. I don't turn my answers and understandings into points of division and/or contention.

[RollingStone]

So I ask the question again. What is an apostle? What does he do? I know what set the first century apostles apart. But what about today?[/quote]

I used to be confused as to who a "saint" was before the LC.
The RCC has some high standards for sainthood that I think have affected the Protestant church. It took a brother who showed me the context of where the word saint was used in the Epistles that I came to believe that all the believers were saints as they had Christ in them not because of what they did or accomplished.
While being confused about what a saint was I had a view that the positions of apostles, prophets, teachers, works of powers, then gifts of healing, helps, administration, various kinds of tongues. as being things you do and not neccessarily a title. There we had lots of people speaking in tongues, the pastor was really an administrator, lots of practical helps (was a bunch of brothers who could fix a chimney or install a toilet in your house), I have witnessed healings and a lot of attempts at healing, lots of teachings about everything, the prophets was looking back sometimes like sooothsaying or predicting the future as oppose to just speaking the word. (Interesting is they allegorized the word trumpet as a prophet instead of publication) and apostles I met some that claimed that title and they went around helping with new churches. I am thinking apostles may not have that title but function with the start of churches as we can see churches everywhere. We do see a discription also of false apostles those who call themselves apostles and are not. Having said that I never bought into the "ministry of the age" position.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Please tell me.

1. How do we recognize apostles? (please consider 2 Cor 12:12)
2. Name some of the apostles on earth for the last 150 years. Please include some not in the LRC movement.
3. Who is an apostle today?

Predictable ploy. Can't answer questions so you throw some back at me.

Wish I had more time to talk. Later ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

My point was that the Bible doesn't say. Paul said God gave some as apostles. Paul didn't indicate that this was to continue, unbroken, in perpetuity until the Lord's return. Nor did he indicate that at some point it would cease.

But history seems to have shown that it ceased, save for "the desposyni" and the RCC and the Mormons and the Living Stream Ministry crowd and others who all seem to share control issues.



Taylor, like Moody and Graham, seems more like and evangelist.

Luther, along with Wesley, formed large religious organizations and so might be seen (in retrospect) as apostolic. Did they or their conemporaries ever claim such? Or are several centuries of history needed for determination?

Another point against 'apostles today'. We lack perspective. Anyone can claim, but the lens of history is not clear to us. So the wanna-be's trumpet.

I knew a brother who, to those that knew him, would unequivocally be considered a gifted evangelist. I think there could be no dispute that he was a gift given to the body. That said, he never was famous, never held large tent rallies, never really did much more than preach the gospel every day. Likewise, although I don't know their names, I am aware that in history as well as today, there are brothers that tirelessly raise up christian congregations. Now their might not be any comparison with an Apostle Paul as far as Biblical revelation and insight into the word. They may not be famous, they may not really appear to be much of anything. But no doubt, those that know them would realize they are gifts to the body. Not exactly evangelists, not exactly shepherds and teachers. So, what are they? Certainly not one of "the" apostles. But I think it is fair to describe their gift as "apostolic". Just like Jesus told Peter "If I want him to abide until I return, what is that to you". The Lord has different callings for different saints, what is that to us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

So I ask the question again. What is an apostle? What does he do? I know what set the first century apostles apart. But what about today?

I used to be confused as to who a "saint" was before the LC.
The RCC has some high standards for sainthood that I think have affected the Protestant church. It took a brother who showed me the context of where the word saint was used in the Epistles that I came to believe that all the believers were saints as they had Christ in them not because of what they did or accomplished.
While being confused about what a saint was I had a view that the positions of apostles, prophets, teachers, works of powers, then gifts of healing, helps, administration, various kinds of tongues. as being things you do and not neccessarily a title. There we had lots of people speaking in tongues, the pastor was really an administrator, lots of practical helps (was a bunch of brothers who could fix a chimney or install a toilet in your house), I have witnessed healings and a lot of attempts at healing, lots of teachings about everything, the prophets was looking back sometimes like sooothsaying or predicting the future as oppose to just speaking the word. (Interesting is they allegorized the word trumpet as a prophet instead of publication) and apostles I met some that claimed that title and they went around helping with new churches. I am thinking apostles may not have that title but function with the start of churches as we can see churches everywhere. We do see a discription also of false apostles those who call themselves apostles and are not. Having said that I never bought into the "ministry of the age" position.

Yes, I too was once clear. It was clear what the ground of the church is, it was clear that I was a saint, it was clear that God wanted me to prophesy, and that if I "was sent" that I was by definition an apostle. Now Igzy's got me all confused! Why would you do that!? First the RCC defined Apostle, then WL defined Apostle, and now Igzy is giving us a definition.

Perhaps we are too concerned with titles and not concerned enough with the commission the Lord has given us. (PS I think the quotes on RollingStones post were mangled, the first two lines may have been quoted from another post).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The practical issue is not being able to look back in time and say "that person was an apostle." This issue is how to identify current apostles. That's where the problem lies.

They had the exact same problem in the first century, so obviously the church did not consider only the Twelve plus Paul to be Apostles. Paul's second epistle to Corinth (actually his third) addresses the problems created by some who called themselves apostles, but were not. If there were no more apostles, why didn't Paul tell us so?

The Lord praised Ephesus (Rev 2.2) when they tried those who claimed to be apostles. If the age of Apostles was over, why didn't John, the final writer of the Bible, tell us so? What were the tests that Ephesus applied to these "apostles" when the church tried them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, what are the fruits of apostleship?

Also, what's the difference between an apostle and a missionary?

Not saying every missionary is an apostle, but it would be extremely hard to differentiate the life and fruits of some missionaries from the earliest apostles, and since the Bible does not use the words "mission or missionary," I believe they avoided the "apostle-problem" by using an alternate name.

[aron]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

I am thinking apostles may not have that title but function ...

We will see in "that day" who has titles and who has functions. That is why I am not really interested in titles. Only the ones that pass the Bema are real.

So try to function, according to your strengths, and your opportunities, and let the Master (Gk kurios) deal with appelations. Peter was named by Jesus. He didn't get to pick his own name.

I know, I know: Saul became Paul, and "Watchman" Nee and "Witness" Lee were 'raised up', but really I don't see compelling precedents there, nor does history seem to bear that out.

Instead I see titles becoming bones of contention. Not worth it. Just function. Let God sort things out. Jesus didn't give us "Roberts Rules of Order". He just said "love one another".

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am aware that in history as well as today, there are brothers that tirelessly raise up christian congregations. ..... Not exactly evangelists, not exactly shepherds and teachers. So, what are they? Certainly not one of "the" apostles. But I think it is fair to describe their gift as "apostolic". Just like Jesus told Peter "If I want him to abide until I return, what is that to you". The Lord has different callings for different saints, what is that to us.

Exactly. Unless you think your particular gift is to wrangle with others over titles, who cares, really? Just function as best you can in your circumstances.

Jesus said, "If you get invited to a feast, take the least seat. Then, if the Master of the feast calls you higher, you can go." Lee and his spiritual progeny seem to have taught this, but I don't think they practiced it. It was too tempting to be a "responsible brother" or a "blended brother" or a "laboring one" or a "co-worker" under, ahem, "the apostle". Nah, it was just too juicy to pass up. Besides, without titles, everything would collapse into chaos. Right?

Like the Israelites, baying to God, "We wanna king!! We wanna king!! Why can't we be like the nations and have a king!?!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

We will see in "that day" who has titles and who has functions. That is why I am not really interested in titles. Only the ones that pass the Bema are real.

Originally Posted by aron

Exactly. Unless you think your particular gift is to wrangle with others over titles, who cares, really? Just function as best you can in your circumstances.

You are making many good points, but the Bible does address the matter of titles in many occasions. Paul said he was an apostle on many occasions, and then he appointed elders in all the churches.

aron, if your points were valid, not to say I don't like them, then why didn't the Bible end just with the gospels? We would be left with "love God and love your neighbor," and we would be delivered from this age-old discussion about who is an apostle. Wouldn't it be so good if we were all just brothers and sisters, just like in the gospels?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wouldn't it be so good if we were all just brothers and sisters, just like in the gospels?

Yeah, thanks Paul. When Watchman Nee discovered that Christians lie, that goes all the way back to the earliest writer of NT scriptures.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

aron, if your points were valid ... then why didn't the Bible end just with the gospels? We would be left with "love God and love your neighbor," and we would be delivered from this age-old discussion about who is an apostle.

The Bible is what it is, epistles and all. Just read the 4 gospels 15 times for every epistle (especially if you are a "NEW ONE")

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The Bible is what it is, epistles and all.

Also worth mentioning is that, though the Bible continues past the gospels and into the Acts and epistles of Paul et al, it keeps going further. After the pastoral epistles is Revelation: opening with "writings to the seven churches" (Rev 1:4,11) which are, by and large, neither salutatory nor sanguine.

(And the LSM footnote that all the local churches need to be "absolutely identical", with the problems in Rev 2 & 3 arising from "differences" is a joke. If God wanted absolute identicality He would have built an assembly line of robots. Instead, God planted a farm [1 Cor 3]).

Jesus didn't use elders or apostles in Revelation 1. His right hand contained seven stars, seven messengers. Each star was capable of delivering Jesus' words to the assembly of believers in that city/region (Rev 1:20).

So yes, Paul does talk about the church having apostles. But don't fall into the trap of finding a verse which aligns with your comfort zone and settling down there. Keep going. Keep pressing on, into the land of crumbling concepts. The Shepherd and the Comforter will meet you there, and will guide you home to the Father.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Predictable ploy. Can't answer questions so you throw some back at me.

Wish I had more time to talk. Later ...

Ohio I'm not "ploying" with you, okay? I'm just having a discussion. Show me a little more respect, okay, and please stop being rude. I thought you and I were friends.

What questions do you want me to answer? The reasons I skipped some was because I felt they missed the point I was making. I tried to clarify that point, but let me spell it out simply below, and then fire your questions if you still have them.

1. Apostles of the first century type cannot exist today because those established the faith and faith is already established.

2. Apostles can exist today (missionaries, church planters, major visionaries), but not of the rank of the first century.

3. We need to be careful when we designate someone an "apostle" and not by title association endow them with the same authority of the first century apostles, that is, give them some grey area to further establish the faith (read "redefine) and/or command too much authority in controlling churches, as this is the error of Lee and the LRC.

Does that make sense? Thoughts? Where am I going wrong?

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio I'm not "ploying" with you, okay? I'm just having a discussion. Show me a little more respect, okay, and please stop being rude. I thought you and I were friends.

Igzy, I'm surprised you said that. After thinking back over some of your past "debates" with SI, SC, and others (recently Ryan?), including myself at times, I eventually came to the conclusion that sometimes you place "winning" over friendships.

Hopefully I am wrong. Perhaps it is not your goal, but it does seem that way at times to me.

But, back to our discussion about "apostles." Perhaps the difficulty we have faced is that you are viewing the matter of apostles in context of WL and the LC, while I am pursuing questions I have had based on the Bible and church history, independent of LRC teaching and practice. You are justified, of course, since this a WL/LC forum!

Whether you have considered it or not, as our discussion progressed, I knew the stage would be reached when you would then defend your position by launching a barrage of questions back at me. That's why I posted, "predictable ploy." I never intended to be rude. Brief and to the point, perhaps, but not rude. I tried to respond to you in kind. When you said "Please tell me," it escalated a casual discussion into something more serious.

The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?

Because the Bible does not say that there are more apostles.

The Bible says there were apostles (1 Cor 12, Eph 4). But it doesn't say there were to be more (i.e. continuing unabated after Paul et al) apostles.

You seem to think that it states (or infers) that somewhere. I don't recall seeing that. Nor does christian history (the record of interpretation & application) seem to bear out the "more apostles" view, except with what might be charitably called "fringe" groups.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

1. Apostles of the first century type cannot exist today because those established the faith and faith is already established.

2. Apostles can exist today (missionaries, church planters, major visionaries), but not of the rank of the first century.

3. We need to be careful when we designate someone an "apostle" and not by title association endow them with the same authority of the first century apostles, that is, give them some grey area to further establish the faith (read "redefine) and/or command too much authority in controlling churches, as this is the error of Lee and the LRC.

Does that make sense? Thoughts? Where am I going wrong?

Good points. Let me add what little I know.

1. It seems to me that apostles like the "Twelve plus Paul" (for convenience say "13") cannot exist today because only these ones were with the Lord on earth, specifically chosen by Him, trained by Him, commissioned by Him, and became eyewitnesses of His death and resurrection.

2. Whether they were of the "13" or not, did not determine whether they would write scripture or not. The Spirit was not bound by the "13" as to who would write scripture. Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul were of the "13," but Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not of the "13." So one half of the N.T. writers were not of the "13."

3. It seems to me that the Spirit ended the canon of the N.T. with John's Revelation, not because he was the last surviving of the "13," but because it was the eternal plan of God.

4. Besides the "13," the Bible lists other apostles such as Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, and Silas. No one is saying that these ones match the "13" in stature or calling. Also, the Bible never indicates that these ones should not be considered as apostles.

5. The Bible never says that there are no more apostles, rather that "He gives gifts to man," and He continues to "give gifts to man." I believe that church history is filled with the accounts of these many "gifts."

6. Today the Head still gives "gifts to men ... some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers." What identifies them is their calling and their mission, not their ability to write scripture. Actually, the apostleship and the writing of scripture seem no where dependent on one another, as non-apostles wrote some scripture, and some of the "13" wrote nothing of scripture.

7. The only ones in the N.T. who could boldly claim their apostleship were the "13." None of the 1st century apostles like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, or Silas claimed their apostleship. It was recorded as such, yet they were not "titled" as such. I believe the same should be true today. When someone calls him- (or her-) self an "apostle," probably he (or she) is not, yet many others are indeed apostles, given as gifts to men by the Head.

Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?

[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?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?

13 is a heresy...

[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

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, my only recollection was of him rebuking anyone who said that, but that was in the early 80s

I was referring to your statement,

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also feel that WL's distinguishing between them with "the" and "a" is going to create confusion and misunderstanding.

P.S. All stocked up on bottled water?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, my only recollection was of him rebuking anyone who said that, but that was in the early 80s

My whole issue that ended up with Mel Porter giving me an ultimatum was over rejecting that Witness Lee was the apostle on the earth.

It was called "The Flow of Oneness." Here's how it went : Christ is on his throne. From the throne comes the river of life, carrying the authority of the throne. The river of life flows to "the apostle of God on the earth" - Witness Lee. Then it flows from the apostle of God to the elders in each locality, and then to the saints in each locality. Psalms 133 was used to depict it.

I outright rejected it. My contention was that Witness Lee wasn't the apostle of God on the earth. That got me the boot.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

P.S. All stocked up on bottled water?

Sort of. I was planning to go visit my Mom but the city called all city employees looking for people to man the evacuation ctrs. I will say this, NYC is very well prepared for what is coming. Regardless of what happens this will not be a repeat of Katrina.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

My whole issue that ended up with Mel Porter giving me an ultimatum was over rejecting that Witness Lee was the apostle on the earth.

It was called "The Flow of Oneness." Here's how it went : Christ is on his throne. From the throne comes the river of life, carrying the authority of the throne. The river of life flows to "the apostle of God on the earth" - Witness Lee. Then it flows from the apostle of God to the elders in each locality, and then to the saints in each locality. Psalms 133 was used to depict it.

I outright rejected it. My contention was that Witness Lee wasn't the apostle of God on the earth. That got me the boot.

That fits with my recollection. RG and others promoted to high heaven that WL was "the apostle" and then in messages from WL you would get this pathetic rebuke by WL telling them to stop when you know that if WL really wanted them to stop it would have stopped. It wasn't merely a teaching of fact but of obedience, it was all about "being one" with the MOTA.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sort of. I was planning to go visit my Mom but the city called all city employees looking for people to man the evacuation ctrs. I will say this, NYC is very well prepared for what is coming. Regardless of what happens this will not be a repeat of Katrina.

So does that mean you're coming to us from there?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That fits with my recollection. RG and others promoted to high heaven that WL was "the apostle" and then in messages from WL you would get this pathetic rebuke by WL telling them to stop when you know that if WL really wanted them to stop it would have stopped. It wasn't merely a teaching of fact but of obedience, it was all about "being one" with the MOTA.

I think this is the same reaction many of us had to RG's pray-reading booklet. It's hard to take it seriously, because if it really meant anything to the leadership, the practice would have changed.

Overnight, no. But in a year, or two, or 30?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good points. Let me add what little I know.

1. It seems to me that apostles like the "Twelve plus Paul" (for convenience say "13") cannot exist today because only these ones were with the Lord on earth, specifically chosen by Him, trained by Him, commissioned by Him, and became eyewitnesses of His death and resurrection.

2. Whether they were of the "13" or not, did not determine whether they would write scripture or not. The Spirit was not bound by the "13" as to who would write scripture. Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul were of the "13," but Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not of the "13." So one half of the N.T. writers were not of the "13."

Everyone that wrote Scripture however seemed to be closely associated with the apostles or Jesus. Luke with Paul; Mark with Peter; Jude, the brother of James, who was the brother of Jesus. There is no book "out of the blue." Jude is the only book that even comes close being that kind. Though we are not certain of the writer of Hebrews.

3. It seems to me that the Spirit ended the canon of the N.T. with John's Revelation, not because he was the last surviving of the "13," but because it was the eternal plan of God.

There may be only correlation, no causation, but still the pattern holds. Only the 13 or someone directly associated with them or Jesus wrote scripture.

4. Besides the "13," the Bible lists other apostles such as Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, and Silas. No one is saying that these ones match the "13" in stature or calling. Also, the Bible never indicates that these ones should not be considered as apostles.

I'm curious where these are noted as apostles. I considered them co-workers. But not necessarily apostles themselves.

5. The Bible never says that there are no more apostles, rather that "He gives gifts to man," and He continues to "give gifts to man." I believe that church history is filled with the accounts of these many "gifts."

6. Today the Head still gives "gifts to men ... some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers." What identifies them is their calling and their mission, not their ability to write scripture. Actually, the apostleship and the writing of scripture seem no where dependent on one another, as non-apostles wrote some scripture, and some of the "13" wrote nothing of scripture.

7. The only ones in the N.T. who could boldly claim their apostleship were the "13." None of the 1st century apostles like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, or Silas claimed their apostleship. It was recorded as such, yet they were not "titled" as such. I believe the same should be true today. When someone calls him- (or her-) self an "apostle," probably he (or she) is not, yet many others are indeed apostles, given as gifts to men by the Head.

Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?

I wouldn't totally object to calling someone an apostle today. My chief point was that the LRC borrowed the apostolic status of Paul and others and imbued it to WL. So I think every LRC member at one time wondered, "Is God giving WL further revelation?" I know staunch LSMers have no problem with that, and to me it's dangerous.

So as long as we are in agreement that today's apostles cannot further establish the faith (say by suggesting that the local ground in now an article, as some have), and that they cannot assert authority over churches, then we are close enough in agreement for government work.

The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?

Hopefully I've answer this. My assertion is that there are not anymore apostles of the 1st century rank who could establish the faith. There can be a kind of apostle now. But not with the authority given to those first ones. How can I say this? First the faith has been established already. Second, outside of signs and miracles identifying a 1st rank current apostle (2 Cor 12:12), designating a person with the kind of authority Paul had is just way too subjective given what would be at stake.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

So does that mean you're coming to us from there?

No, from home. My shift was (and is) 10pm to 10am, though it seems I won't be able to leave tomorrow at 10am. We were stocking 12,000 MRE's and similar rations of water last night. And as exhausting as that was, putting up cots is truly a back breaking experience.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy, I'm surprised you said that. After thinking back over some of your past "debates" with SI, SC, and others (recently Ryan?), including myself at times, I eventually came to the conclusion that sometimes you place "winning" over friendships.

Hopefully I am wrong. Perhaps it is not your goal, but it does seem that way at times to me.

Didn't you do the same when you asked me if I still beat my sister? Anyway, I admit I get carried away at times. But it's not about winning with me. It's about getting to the truth. Friendships and people should come first though, and sometimes the line is gray. I'm trying to do better though, I really am. Not perfect and still learning.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Didn't you do the same when you asked me if I still beat my sister? Anyway, I admit I get carried away at times. But it's not about winning with me. It's about getting to the truth. Friendships and people should come first though, and sometimes the line is gray. I'm trying to do better though, I really am. Not perfect and still learning.

What? I didn't know you had a sister.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What? I didn't know you had a sister.

It was on the old forum when you got mad at me about SI. I told you that I sometimes got in philosophical arguments with my sister. Later you asked me if I still beat her, meaning beat her up verbally.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm curious where these are noted as apostles. I considered them co-workers. But not necessarily apostles themselves.

Here are some relatively unknown folks who were considered apostles. Phil 2.25 Epaphroditus was Philippi's apostle. Acts 14.14 Barnabas was an apostle. I Cor 15.7 implies a large number of apostles, separate from Paul and the Twelve. Rom 16.7 says Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles. Junia is especially interesting because the name is feminine. Other verses list other apostles.

I wouldn't totally object to calling someone an apostle today. My chief point was that the LRC borrowed the apostolic status of Paul and others and imbued it to WL. So I think every LRC member at one time wondered, "Is God giving WL further revelation?" I know staunch LSMers have no problem with that, and to me it's dangerous.

I agree with this. Rome endues popes with the status of Peter. The Recovery endues WN and WL with the "better" status of Paul. Neither systems have been blessed by this error, and many saints have suffered loss, being robbed of Christ, the Head.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Didn't you do the same when you asked me if I still beat my sister? Anyway, I admit I get carried away at times. But it's not about winning with me. It's about getting to the truth. Friendships and people should come first though, and sometimes the line is gray. I'm trying to do better though, I really am. Not perfect and still learning.

I do remember some discussion about your sister. I wasn't "doing the same," rather pointing out what you seemed to do, without realizing it. Sorry if I crossed the line.

Of course, none of us is perfect. I hope I am not implying that I am. In fact, I may have chased off as many posters as you have. The latest one may be KisstheSon.

[manna-man]

Your funny!

KTS has followed his personal convictions.

No one has run him off, and if I know KTS, he will be lurking.

Don't worry, be happy.

Peace which comes by the light of the world,

Don Jr.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

we had a lengthy discussion before on the origin of the teaching of the MOTA and everyone agreed that it came from RG after the Philippians training. First, for a few months after the training he was developing the teaching, little glimmers here and there in the meeting. Then about 8 months later he was bolder, laying out the entire teaching to the church in Houston. Then in Irving he began pushing it on other elders.

I would recommend the teachings of Jesus over the teachings of RG. Don't forget there were numerous instances in the gospels where the discussion of "who's the first" came up. Jesus was clear: if you want to be first, be last.

The teachings in the Epistle to the Hebrews echoes this. There is a minister of the age today, and it is Jesus. Period. (Hebrews 1:2) Today God's speaking, His oracle, is in Jesus Christ the Nazarene, crucified and risen and ascended and glorified.

Any and all of us can and should strive to be vehicles to express Jesus on earth today, and be "ambassadors of Christ". But any discussion of earthly positions and hierarchies misses the mark... there is indeed a celestial hierarchy, but because of the fall, any striving to be "first" here on earth is to play into the enemy's hands. Don't think that just because you are in the church you can safely create hierarchies, and exert control over one another ("one publication" etc). No; Satan is not called the subtle one for nothing. See e.g. Genesis 3:1, 2 Corinthians 11:3, Revelations 12:9

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here are some relatively unknown folks who were considered apostles. Phil 2.25 Epaphroditus was Philippi's apostle. Acts 14.14 Barnabas was an apostle. I Cor 15.7 implies a large number of apostles, separate from Paul and the Twelve. Rom 16.7 says Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles. Junia is especially interesting because the name is feminine. Other verses list other apostles.

Good stuff. But couldn't 1 Cor 15:7 be taken to imply that a true apostle has seen Jesus? Especially when combined with 1 Cor 9:1?

"He also appeared to James, and then to all of the apostles." [emphasis mine] 1 Cor 15:7

"I am free. I am an apostle. I have seen the Lord Jesus and have led you to have faith in him." 1 Cor 9:1

[OBW]

I understand the general meaning of the word that we translate "apostle." And there is some evidence that there were many who laid claim to being an apostle because there was reference made to those who call themselves apostles, yet no clear definition of what they considered the criteria unless we assume that the "have seen Jesus" was an implied requirement.

But the most important thing that I see is that there were some who were designated as apostles and that is not something that can be clearly repeated. This is not to say that there is no such thing as an apostle in a general sense. But to declare that you are an apostle seems a little like claiming to be an oracle. Not entirely so, because while God spoke clearly to say there are no oracles other than those he has declared to be so, he has made no clear statement on apostles. But he did designate some, and then it would appear that some others designated themselves.

I'm more prone to accept that in this day and age, there is not something called an apostle that stands in the way that Peter, John, James, Paul, and a few others did in that day. For that reason, the alternate term of "missionary" is highly preferred because to me it places bounds on the calling and commission of the "sent one." To say "apostle" seems to presume broad power and authority that there is no evidence actually exists. And it seems to be used almost exclusively in the context of leaders of small groups who have an exalted and authoritarian leader — like Lee. And used by the person claiming the authority (even if a back-door claim — like Lee).

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm more prone to accept that in this day and age, there is not something called an apostle that stands in the way that Peter, John, James, Paul, and a few others did in that day. ...To say "apostle" seems to presume broad power and authority that there is no evidence actually exists. And it seems to be used almost exclusively in the context of leaders of small groups who have an exalted and authoritarian leader — like Lee. And used by the person claiming the authority (even if a back-door claim — like Lee).

There seems to have been a general consensus among the believers that Peter, James, John, Paul, and a few others were indeed apostles. But that consensus seems to have faded save in the cases in which OBW noted, with leaders and groups having control issues.

Ohio's statement that Paul's "God gave some to be apostles..." indicates an enduring trend, versus a short-term event, does not seem self-evident in the reading, nor does it seem very compelling in the historical record.

And speaking of the historical record, I have what I call the "300 Year Rule"; I think it takes time for the objective lens of history to clarify and judge the works of the christian personality. I am able to make up my mind easier with Erasmus and Luther and Calvin, and with Wesley and Edwards, and to decide what merits value or not, than I can with D.L. Moody or Spurgeon or the 20th century figures.

So we might make a case, if it really mattered to us, that some historical figures approached the impact on the church that Paul or John had, but it becomes harder when we asses a Rick Warren or a Billy Graham. With contemporaries, ironically, we see so little and are more clouded with subjective criteria, and it makes it difficult to gain the same perspective and rough consensus we have with the early apostles.

So to me it becomes like the trinity or the free will/God's sovereignty debate or the rapture/tribulation/millenium discussions; subjects that while not entirely irrelevant or unbiblical are (to me) of limited profit, difficult to gain consensus on, and open to endless varieties of debate and interminable wrangling.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Good stuff. But couldn't 1 Cor 15:7 be taken to imply that a true apostle has seen Jesus? Especially when combined with 1 Cor 9:1?

"He also appeared to James, and then to all of the apostles." [emphasis mine] 1 Cor 15:7

"I am free. I am an apostle. I have seen the Lord Jesus and have led you to have faith in him." 1 Cor 9:1

Many notable Christians have made this claim, and for good reason I suppose, since it is convenient and "clean" to claim there are no more apostles. Personally, I wish this were the case, because by noting ones like Epaphroditus are apostles, a whole host of complications are introduced. I'm sure the ones working with Paul, who were considered to be apostles in his epistles, were legit. Others, however, looked favorably upon the perks of the apostleship, and claimed it for their themselves. These ones caused great damage to the gospel, and Paul referred to them as "super-apostles."

I Cor 15.5-8 indicates an order of witnessing the resurrected Christ (sorry to the many dear and seeking sisters who were left out of this list) --

1. Cephas (Peter)
2. The Twelve
3. 500 brothers
4. James, brother of the Lord, leader in Jerusalem, author of epistle
5. All the apostles
6. Saul called Paul

Some observations here --

1. Paul gets a "dig" into James, by noting how many saw the resurrected Jesus before James, His own brother, indicating how slow James was to finally believe
2. Paul differentiates the "Twelve" from "all the apostles." Perhaps he is considering the 120 at Pentecost all to be "apostles." Perhaps these were later considered an expanded grouping beyond the original Twelve. Acts 1.4-8 supports this view, calling them "witnesses."
3. Note that Judas was replaced. Apparently there were many "alternate jurors" who had witnessed all the "testimony" over the last 3 plus years with Jesus. Matthias was selected (Acts 1:21-26) as one of many brothers who were with them "all the time from the baptism of John until the ascension."
4. Hence, to the earliest disciples with Peter leading at the time, having "Twelve" designated as "witnesses of the resurrection," was extremely important. They felt it was better to pick a replacement themselves, than to be limited to "the eleven" remaining ones, hand-picked by the Lord.
5. The "secondary" apostles mentioned in the epistles, like Epaphroditus and Timothy, who were saved in the Gentile world, long after Jesus departed from the earth, could not be included among those listed above who had seen the Lord Jesus.
6. Concerning I Cor 9.1, Paul definitely includes himself with the other apostles, at least with the greater number of perhaps 120 apostles. The book of Galatians is Paul's assertion that he should be ranked with or ahead of even the "Twelve." This assertion by Paul identifies the ongoing "battle" which we witness in the Acts and Epistles.
7. Actually it was Paul who really "defined" the truth of the N.T. Without his calling and commission by the Head, even the "Twelve" may have deteriorated in time into a modified Jewish-only gospel. As the truth-standard-bearer, Paul uplifted the truth taught by the "Twelve," restoring and preserving it to its original glory, as they had received from the Lord.

[ZNPaaneah]

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

1. The gift of apostles is listed with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Unless you want to say that there haven’t been anymore of any of these gifts since the days of the Apostle John I see nothing from these verses to suggest that the gift of Apostles is any different from the other gifts.

2. The gifts listed in verse 11 are given for the perfecting of the saints. Unless you want to say that the saints were perfected back in the time of the Apostle John why would you think the Body is no longer in need of Apostles?

3. The gifts are for the work of the ministry. Did this work cease at the time of the Apostle John? If not, why would the apostles no longer be given?

4. The gifts are for the building up of the Body of Christ. Did the building up of the Body of Christ cease after the Apostle John? If not, why would the apostles no longer be given since that was the purpose for which they were given.

5. Now it seems to me that verse 13 kind of explains where exactly we are headed: until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith (Paul may have arrived at this already, but the goal was for all of us to arrive, I think we are all in agreement that we certainly have not all arrived at this oneness yet).

When I read this verse the gift of apostles is put right next to the gift of pastors. No one is arguing that we no longer have pastors. I don’t see the slightest indication from these verses that the gift of the Apostles only refers to those that saw Jesus or who wrote scripture.

I have read the many lengthy posts. I understand that Christian history is full of false apostles, super apostles, false Christs, and false prophets. To me you can’t have a forgery without the real thing. So whereas the tendency seems to be to shy away from the term due to its misuse, I think the more appropriate response is to fight the pressure. (In football, when you play defense you are taught to fight the pressure, if they are pushing you one way you want to go the other.) This is how I understand Revelation 2:2 “I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:”. Why would you need to test and examine those that say they are apostles in order to find them liars if the NT taught that the Apostles only referred to those that wrote scripture or that saw Jesus? It seems to me that this wasn’t simply a matter of filling out a checklist, but was a difficult and arduous process and the Lord is commending the saints for doing this.

Also, we know at the end of the age the Lord will send the 2 witnesses. Likewise we know that there will be an antichrist and a false prophet. It seems to me that discerning between a forgery and the real thing will be a very valuable skill that all Christians need to know. So I don’t buy the idea that this is a useless discussion or that it is merely a matter of titles or semantics.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The gift of apostles is listed with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Unless you want to say that there haven’t been anymore of any of these gifts since the days of the Apostle John I see nothing from these verses to suggest that the gift of Apostles is any different from the other gifts..

I see human logic at work here... You say that if there are not apostles today then there cannot be any gifts given. Why? Why can't there be some gifts given today? Doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition until the Lord returns.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The gifts listed in verse 11 are given for the perfecting of the saints. Unless you want to say that the saints were perfected back in the time of the Apostle John why would you think the Body is no longer in need of Apostles?

Again you are imposing circumstances upon ours. If something happened once, it must be a necessity for all time. I don't see it.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don’t see the slightest indication from these verses that the gift of the Apostles only refers to those that saw Jesus or who wrote scripture.

And I don't see the slightest indication from these verses that apostles are required in perpetuity for the body to function.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why would you need to test and examine those that say they are apostles in order to find them liars if the NT taught that the Apostles only referred to those that wrote scripture or that saw Jesus? It seems to me that this wasn’t simply a matter of filling out a checklist, but was a difficult and arduous process and the Lord is commending the saints for doing this..

When John wrote about testing those who say they are apostles, there were multiple claims among the fellowship (not only Paul and John and Peter, but ambitious Johnny-come-latelys) for this title. Just as Paul and John and Peter have departed, so have those claims receded to the "fringes" of christianity. Just because there may be some today claiming to be apostles doesn't mean that there must therefore be true apostles among us.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, we know at the end of the age the Lord will send the 2 witnesses. Likewise we know that there will be an antichrist and a false prophet. It seems to me that discerning between a forgery and the real thing will be a very valuable skill that all Christians need to know

Unless I see some compelling reason to find apostles among us I am wary;
from my contacts in christianity I think many are similarly wary.

Go back to Igzy's question. Just suppose the verse "God gave some to be apostles" describes not just Paul's time but is actually a requirement for all times. Suppose "You tried some who claimed to be apostles and were not" in the first century means that therefore we in the 21st century need to try and approve some who claim to be apostles and in fact are.

How do we go about such a task? I don't see anybody making much headway except the fringe sects with their exalted leaders. And I put the RCC there, too. I don't see the Pope as some "bishop-approved" apostle.

On the other hand, have you ever heard of the "Throne of James"? Have you ever heard of the "desposyni"? The speed in which the believers elevate some beyond their allotted portion is rather disconcerting, and echoes (for me) the original fall, of the original "Light bearer" (Lucifer) who presumed a place not his.

See also Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."

I think it is a fearful thing to presume a place not expressly given by God. How are we collectively to determine whether or not Joyce Myers or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or pastor Chuck Smith or whomever is actually an apostle?

To me, the parable in Luke 14 seems equally Biblical, and timely, as Ephesians 4:11. When the Master gives a feast, take the last seat. Don't sit somewhere you don't belong. If anyone out there wants to sit in the seat marked "Apostle", go for it. I see no compelling reason we the christian polity should prop any of them up.

[Cal]

Unless apostles can operate effectively as apostles without being recognized as apostles it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. On the other hand, if they can operate effectively as apostles without apostolic recognition then the need to recognize them is moot. However, as aron said the Lord said we should discern false apostles, which means we should discern true ones as well.

This discussion is really academc if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion. I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do? How do we know a true apostle? Z said by their fruit. What fruit, exactly?

Here are few names.

Andrew Murray
Watchman Nee
Billy Graham
A.W. Tozer
T.A. Sparks
C.S. Lewis
Witness Lee
Titus Chu
Joel Osteen
Beth Moore
Joyce Meyer
John Stott
J.I. Packer
Rick Warren

Do you consider any of these apostles? Why or why not?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Unless apostles can operate effectively in today it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. This discussion is really esoteric if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion.

I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do?

Apostles are sent by the Lord with a specific commission.

Paul was an apostle, but he was also an evangelist, shepherd, and teacher.

Peter was an apostle, but was also an elder.

An apostle cannot just be a writer, a speaker, a gifted teacher, or a productive mega-church builder. He must be a field worker, hence the word "sent."

I think it is very safe to say that ones like Hudson Taylor, Bakht Singh, and Watchman Nee are apostles. These ones were pioneering workers, who "turned their world up side down."

No matter who is proposed as an apostle, there will always be detractors. The same was true of Paul. Thousands in the early church refused to recognize him.

Unfortunately, the topic of apostleship today has been reduced to esoterics, since few genuine apostles will dare to touch the subject. Hence, we are left with only a handful of frauds today who claim this title, ones like Apostles Bill and Jane Hamon. Outside of certain Pentecostal circles, however, no one would recognize them, or believe in their claims. The same things could be said of prophets.

If I had to define an apostle, I would look for a life-long, life-changing, pioneering work, marked by suffering and hardship, and blessed by the Head with both signs and much fruit. There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do? How do we know a true apostle? Z said by their fruit. What fruit, exactly?

If we are to judge apostles and discern via fruit, then we need an (arbitrary) number as a threshold for apostle-hood. Sort of like the RCC determining who are the real saints among us.

So I propose founding at least 6 churches of 200 members or more.

In my mind's eye, "...and it's Witness Lee coming around the bend! Dong Yu Lan closing fast!! Titus Chu fading by the post!!"

Inspired (partly) by Monty Python's "Queen Victoria Handicap" skit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktYMkxD0Fzc

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Unless apostles can operate effectively as apostles without being recognized as apostles it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. On the other hand, if they can operate effectively as apostles without apostolic recognition then the need to recognize them is moot. However, as aron said the Lord said we should discern false apostles, which means we should discern true ones as well.

This discussion is really academc if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion. I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do? How do we know a true apostle? Z said by their fruit. What fruit, exactly??

How about raising the dead and healing the sick?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I see human logic at work here... You say that if there are not apostles today then there cannot be any gifts given. Why? Why can't there be some gifts given today? Doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition until the Lord returns.

No, I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by aron

Again you are imposing circumstances upon ours. If something happened once, it must be a necessity for all time. I don't see it.

No, I am not imposing anything. Try reading my post again.

Originally Posted by aron

And I don't see the slightest indication from these verses that apostles are required in perpetuity for the body to function.

I don't understand what you are saying. I don't understand "perpetuity". I don't even know if this is a response to my questions. Do you disagree that Apostles were given for the perfecting of the saints? For the work of ministry? For the building of the Body? Just as the gift of pastors was as well? If so, do you think that the saints were perfected at the time of John, or that the work of ministry was completed, or that the building of the Body of Christ was completed? If you don't, then based on what would you assume that we no longer need apostles?

Originally Posted by aron

When John wrote about testing those who say they are apostles, there were multiple claims among the fellowship (not only Paul and John and Peter, but ambitious Johnny-come-latelys) for this title. Just as Paul and John and Peter have departed, so have those claims receded to the "fringes" of christianity. Just because there may be some today claiming to be apostles doesn't mean that there must therefore be true apostles among us.

Pretty strange comment seeing that it is posted on "Local Church Discussions" an internet forum that could easily be described as having the mission to test the claim of whether or not WL is the MOTA.

Originally Posted by aron

Unless I see some compelling reason to find apostles among us I am wary;

Once again, you are not responding to what I said. I did not suggest a compelling reason to find apostles. Rather I said there is a compelling reason to test whether or not someone is an apostle. Discerning between false teachers and true teachers is clearly a compelling function in the NT. My reference to the Church in Ephesus is only one of many possible references that could be made.

Originally Posted by aron

from my contacts in christianity I think many are similarly wary.

Go back to Igzy's question. Just suppose the verse "God gave some to be apostles" describes not just Paul's time but is actually a requirement for all times. Suppose "You tried some who claimed to be apostles and were not" in the first century means that therefore we in the 21st century need to try and approve some who claim to be apostles and in fact are.

How do we go about such a task?

What do you think we are doing on this forum? Look at the threads. We recently had a lengthy discussion on Pray Reading and RG's book. This is what is currently happening on this forum, we are trying those that purporting to teach the truth to us to see if it is so. It is a difficult process. It requires that we can cut straight the word of God and apply the truth to the present situation. It is a spiritual exercise. But this is the task that we are doing. We are teaching how to do it by example. In this case I would say the key principle is to not add to or take away from the divine record. Also, I would add that just because there is pressure to drop the term and as a result many other Christians are shying away is also not a valid reason to teach this as truth.

Originally Posted by aron

I don't see anybody making much headway except the fringe sects with their exalted leaders. And I put the RCC there, too. I don't see the Pope as some "bishop-approved" apostle.

And if you could show from the NT that this was in fact the case it would be one more nail in the coffin. If you put the RCC with the fringe sects then I obviously do not know what you mean by "fringe" sects. I have heard a lot of comments made about the RCC, but "fringe" sect is certainly not one of them.

Originally Posted by aron

On the other hand, have you ever heard of the "Throne of James"? Have you ever heard of the "desposyni"? The speed in which the believers elevate some beyond their allotted portion is rather disconcerting, and echoes (for me) the original fall, of the original "Light bearer" (Lucifer) who presumed a place not his.

See also Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."

The NT talks about "lust of the flesh". Should we therefore forbid marriage (as the RCC and others have) as a response? Some people are prone to being an alcoholic, Paul said that if wine stumbles my brother then I won't drink wine. Why not create a teaching in the NT that since wine is a stumbling stone to some, we as a religion will drink no wine? Some groups do this, there is a famous OT example of this, it was part of the vow of the Nazarite, James gave laws concerning not eating certain foods. Yet Paul doesn't forbid wine. The abuse of wine doesn't change the fact that used properly it is good, which is why he recommended Timothy to drink a little wine. In Ephesians 4 Paul says 4:14 "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" A sail boat is designed with a keel. This keeps the boat sailing straight when the wind wants to blow it to the side. Without the keel you would only be able to sail in the direction the wind is blowing. With a keel you can sail in any direction you wish. The wind doesn't tell you which way to go. You are being pushed by the wind, that is not a reasonable response.

Originally Posted by aron

I think it is a fearful thing to presume a place not expressly given by God.

Yes.

Originally Posted by aron

How are we collectively to determine whether or not Joyce Myers or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or pastor Chuck Smith or whomever is actually an apostle?

I think I already answered this. Learn from our example on this forum. This is exactly what we are doing with regard to WL and others. This same process can be applied to the rest of them.

Originally Posted by aron

To me, the parable in Luke 14 seems equally Biblical, and timely, as Ephesians 4:11. When the Master gives a feast, take the last seat. Don't sit somewhere you don't belong. If anyone out there wants to sit in the seat marked "Apostle", go for it. I see no compelling reason we the christian polity should prop any of them up.

The question, at least for me, is not about propping them up. The question is "do I receive their word or not". LSM, WL and WN have a lot of publications. What are we to make of them? Are they the "pure word", are they healthy teachings, or should we reject them out of hand?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul was an apostle, but he was also an evangelist, shepherd, and teacher.

Peter was an apostle, but was also an elder.

Don't forget John. He was an apostle, and is clearly presenting himself in Revelation as a prophet. See e.g. Revelation 22:9 "you and your brothers the prophets" and 10:11 "you must prophesy" and 22:10 "do not seal the words of this prophecy".

Originally Posted by Ohio

If I had to define an apostle, I would look for a life-long, life-changing, pioneering work, marked by suffering and hardship, and blessed by the Head with both signs and much fruit. There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.

I vote for Desiderius Erasmus on these grounds. Luther and Calvin are out because their ministries were marred by violence. Both approved of violence or used it to gain the kingdom. Fail.

Wesley is in.

There are my 2 apostles. What church should I join? (Just kidding).

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The question, at least for me, is not about propping [apostles] up. The question is "do I receive their word or not". LSM, WL and WN have a lot of publications. What are we to make of them? Are they the "pure word", are they healthy teachings, or should we reject them out of hand?

I receive a lot of teachings by people whom I accept as believers, not apostles. Apostleship is not going to determine (for me) whether someone's book gets on my shelf.

I receive teachings by examining them. I don't have to reject anything out of hand if it's not an apostle.

I like some of Lee's teachings. I don't agree with many of them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

The gift of apostles is listed with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Unless you want to say that there haven’t been anymore of any of these gifts since the days of the Apostle John I see nothing from these verses to suggest that the gift of Apostles is any different from the other gifts.

And I see nothing from these verses that requires all of these gifts in perpetuity. You have an "all or nothing" requirement here which I don't see.

And if your requirement is "Until we all come to the fulness etc" then our required apostle can be the ones who wrote the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Unless apostles can operate effectively as apostles without being recognized as apostles it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. On the other hand, if they can operate effectively as apostles without apostolic recognition then the need to recognize them is moot. However, as aron said the Lord said we should discern false apostles, which means we should discern true ones as well.

This discussion is really academc if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion. I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do? How do we know a true apostle? Z said by their fruit. What fruit, exactly?

Here are few names.

Andrew Murray
Watchman Nee
Billy Graham
A.W. Tozer
T.A. Sparks
C.S. Lewis
Witness Lee
Titus Chu
Joel Osteen
Beth Moore
Joyce Meyer
John Stott
J.I. Packer
Rick Warren

Do you consider any of these apostles? Why or why not?

Before I touch that you have to define what an apostle is. I think that there must be a difference between "an apostle" and "a teacher". If you teach that we are saved by Faith, then I would say you are a teacher. But, if like Martin Luther, that teaching was earth shaking then I think you are not merely a teacher but an apostle. You were sent with this mission to unlock this truth. The truth, for whatever reason, had been locked away, and he was sent to "unlock" it.

Likewise I think there is a difference between being "an apostle" and "an evangelist". If you preach salvation, then I think you are an evangelist. If however, you take the gospel to a people that had hitherto never received it, as Hudson Taylor did, then perhaps you are more than an evangelist, you are an apostle. So I would clarify this, if your mission is to preach the gospel so that people can be saved, you are an evangelist. If your mission is to preach the gospel so that churches can be raised up, then you are an apostle.

Now I don't believe that the standards applied to an Evangelist or Teacher or Apostle should be any higher than that applied for an elder. I am not saying that they should be the same, rather I am just saying they don't need to be higher. No one expects an elder to be sinless, but we do expect them to be above reproach. Unlike an elder, I don't think these gifts require that you be married or to have raised your family well. But, if you are married you should be the husband of one wife (or vice versa), if you do have children you should have raised them well, etc. You don't have to be a teetotaler, but you should not be a drunkard, etc. Consider Martin Luther, if he is going to be examined and scrutinized the way he was, he has to above reproach otherwise the ministry will suffer. Likewise, Hudson Taylor was scrutinized by the Chinese, if he was not above reproach it would have damaged his ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

If we are to judge apostles and discern via fruit, then we need an (arbitrary) number as a threshold for apostle-hood. Sort of like the RCC determining who are the real saints among us.

So I propose founding at least 6 churches of 200 members or more.

In my mind's eye, "...and it's Witness Lee coming around the bend! Dong Yu Lan closing fast!! Titus Chu fading by the post!!"

Inspired (partly) by Monty Python's "Queen Victoria Handicap" skit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktYMkxD0Fzc

Alright, this had better be funny....

OK, that was worth the price of admission.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

How about raising the dead and healing the sick?

Isn't that what is so appealing about the antichrist? He was raised from the dead.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I receive a lot of teachings by people whom I accept as believers, not apostles. Apostleship is not going to determine (for me) whether someone's book gets on my shelf.

I receive teachings by examining them. I don't have to reject anything out of hand if it's not an apostle.

I like some of Lee's teachings. I don't agree with many of them.

See Post #91

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

And I see nothing from these verses that requires all of these gifts in perpetuity. You have an "all or nothing" requirement here which I don't see.

And if your requirement is "Until we all come to the fulness etc" then our required apostle can be the ones who wrote the Bible.

No I my requirement is that I want the NT to state that there are no more apostles before I teach that.

The NT teaches that there were apostles.

The NT teaches that the Resurrected and Ascended Christ gave gifts to men, one of which was apostles, to help them grow into maturity (which I understand to be the end of the Church age).

The NT teaches that it is a good work to examine if someone is an apostle or if they are a liar.

The NT teaches that we will have to continue this work of discerning between those truly sent by God (the two witnesses) versus the frauds (antichrist and false prophet) right up until the Lord's return.

So I see 4 teachings in the NT that are very relevant to whether we have this gift today or not, what I don't see is a teaching that says this gift ended when the NT was canonized.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Isn't that what is so appealing about the antichrist? He was raised from the dead.

According to 2 Thessalonians 2 the "man of sin" will also claim authority not his.

[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

ZNP: The NT teaches that the Resurrected and Ascended Christ gave gifts to men, one of which was apostles (me: yes, he gave Paul and Peter and John and James) to help them grow into maturity

The NT teaches that it is a good work to examine if someone is an apostle (me: John and Paul and James and Peter were apostles; some others I skeptical of) or if they are a liar.

The NT teaches that we will have to continue this work of discerning between those truly sent by God (the two witnesses) versus the frauds (antichrist and false prophet) right up until the Lord's return.

So I see 4 teachings in the NT that are very relevant to whether we have this gift today or not, what I don't see is a teaching that says this gift ended when the NT was canonized.

You and I see different things. I don't see a teaching where this gift (apostles) was either stated or inferred as to be in perpetuity.

I would also be interested in what Nee thought about apostles in the "Normal Chrstian Church Life"... were they a requirement for perpetuity, or a one-time thing?

[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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't understand what you are saying. I don't understand "perpetuity". I don't even know if this is a response to my questions.

The word perpetuity, in my usage, means "henceforth". As in, applicable now and henceforth. To one and to all.

Some things seem to be exegencies, covered in the NT, which are not to be strictly enforced in perpetuity, for all believers at all times.

Like, "women should cover their heads" or "women should be silent in the church". Many who hold Paul as an apostle don't keep this word, because times have changed.

"Drink a little wine for your frequent illnesses" is likewise outmoded.

"Slaves, obey your masters" is now passe.

Miracles also don't seem to be as commonplace among the believers. I can't remember the last meeting I went to where the building shook or tongues of fire danced over our heads. What happened once or twice is not taken as a requirement for all at all times.

Other things, however, are clearly inferred, or stated, as requirements for all believers, in perpetuity:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

"Hold fast to what is good"

Etc.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you disagree that Apostles were given for the perfecting of the saints? For the work of ministry? For the building of the Body? Just as the gift of pastors was as well? If so, do you think that the saints were perfected at the time of John, or that the work of ministry was completed, or that the building of the Body of Christ was completed? If you don't, then based on what would you assume that we no longer need apostles?

I don't assume we no longer need apostles. I said we don't need NEW apostles. For apostles we have the [writings of] Paul, we have Peter and James and even Timothy (who didn't write or do much of note). Beyond that it recedes into murky darkness. Hudson Taylor and Watchman Nee? I don't see my life changing much. And Nee totally blew it, on his "one city/one church" idea. He misread the meaning of "ekklesia".

How much has my apostle (Erasmus) impacted you? None? Too bad; read Enchiridion Militis Christiani.

Actually, I recommend Erasmus' Enchiridion whether or not you hold him as an apostle. There is a section in that book (written 1505) which discusses "The Three Parts of Man" in a far superior manner than LSM's Lee has explicated.

I have never met a writer who shed more light on the scriptures than Erasmus. He is my "apostle". The RCC hated him because he "laid the egg Luther hatched" (see his "Praise of Folly"); the Lutherans hated him because he would not "join the cause".

His 3 parts of man in "Enchiridion" blew away Lee's exposition. Pure inspired enlightenment. Pure poetry. 500 years old and nobody can touch it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I would also be interested in what Nee thought about apostles in the "Normal Chrstian Church Life"... were they a requirement for perpetuity of the Church Age, or a one-time thing?

And if so, who were Nee's apostles through the ages? And if he didn't delineate his apostles, then how could they be important?

I don't see how you can say "Apostles are important for the Body of Christ" and then when I say 'well who was the apostle(s) of the church in 1850 or 1950' and you shrug or dismiss the question.

A: The U.S. always needs Presidents for the functioning of the Government.

Q: Okay, then, who was President in 1850, or 1796? Who was the President in 1908, or 1918?

A: Buddy, I got all your Presidents for you. Give me a date, I can give you a President.

Ohio and ZNP and I guess Nee and Lee are moving along these lines. Apostles are needed at all times for the functioning of the Body.

Okay... and....

The RCC at least tries to answer this question. I give them credit. The Protestants really don't have a leg to stand on.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Unfortunately, the topic of apostleship today has been reduced to esoterics, since few genuine apostles will dare to touch the subject.

Why is that unfortunate? Is there really any other alternative? I mean, this is starting to sound like the local ground debate. "Unfortunately, people don't honor the local ground..." The fact is, the local ground won't work today. Agreeing who's correctly on the ground and who isn't can't be attained. Likewise, agreeing who is an apostle and who isn't can't either. This doesn't compare with the 1st century. True apostles then knew who they were. Does anyone in this age know they are an apostle? I seriously doubt it.

Who says apostles have to be recognized as apostles, anyway? They just carry out their commission to the Lord. All those who benefited from them need say is "Who was that masked man?" as they ride off into the sunset.

If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.

I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.

[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...

[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 Igzy

Who says apostles have to be recognized as apostles, anyway? They just carry out their commission to the Lord. All those who benefited from them need say is "Who was that masked man?" as they ride off into the sunset.

In line with Jesus' teaching. "Don't do your good works before men" (Matt 6:1)

Originally Posted by Igzy

If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.

Your 'no cheerleading' point reinforces my "300 year rule"; those who do good work need protection from us, as much as we do from them. If today I trumpet the writings of Erasmus, probably no one will try & start a new church. The man is long gone.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.

Reality?!? Who's talking about reality, man? We want theology... don't need no reality here...

[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!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why is that unfortunate? Is there really any other alternative? I mean, this is starting to sound like the local ground debate. "Unfortunately, people don't honor the local ground..." The fact is, the local ground won't work today. Agreeing who's correctly on the ground and who isn't can't be attained. Likewise, agreeing who is an apostle and who isn't can't either. This doesn't compare with the 1st century. True apostles then knew who they were. Does anyone in this age know they are an apostle? I seriously doubt it.

Who says apostles have to be recognized as apostles, anyway? They just carry out their commission to the Lord. All those who benefited from them need say is "Who was that masked man?" as they ride off into the sunset.

If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.

I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.

Do you ever just discuss the scriptures, or do you always resort to LRC rants?

After all I have written, you just obsess the word "unfortunately."

Besides my study of the word, I have just wasted my time in this discussion.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

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!

And for the most part, it is these things that creates for me the general thought that apostles are something significant in establishing the church and are not a necessary thing on an ongoing basis. Moses laid out the law through divine contact. And God displayed himself to the Children of Israel in highly miraculous ways. But the miracles began to shrink. You can say that to have won certain battles was a miracle, but it was not always understood in the same light as the parting of the Red Sea or the River Jordan. Then came the prophets. They primarily spoke concerning the sorry state of affairs in Judah and Israel, with much less after the return from captivity, then 400 years of silence. There was the writing of the history, but no more prophecy. Seems that everything was set. The time was just not right.

Then came Jesus. He spoke for three plus years, giving many signs and miracles. This was to establish that he was, at a minimum, a major prophet of God. This was necessary because his words were different from what had been taught for some time. We argue that everything pointed to him. But the understanding was not for a savior who left you within the earthly bondage, but one that threw off the outward bonds of outside rulers. They needed a reason to understand the direction of scripture as something besides the recreation of and earthly kingdom.

And then he was killed. Now you could get 500 people to say they had seen a dead man walking around alive. But the signs and miracles once again established that there was more than earthly conspiracy to push some man-made thing as just an alternate way to live. A good way but no more real than any other. And for the Jews that underpinned the first churches, they knew that the only true miracles were from the one true God. So those were somewhat key to establishing that their God was the author of what those apostles were preaching.

On the day of Pentecost, the people did not hear a bunch of Galileans speaking gibberish. They heard their own languages and knew that these men did not know those languages. The same sign was given to the Samaritans and Gentiles, not so much for their sake as to show the Jews that theses outsiders were now insiders.

But once the truth is established, there is no more need for miracle to underscore truth that otherwise seems contrary to the old thinking (another religion, or even the OT expectation of a worldly savior). So, while there were miracles and tongues, it might be that their ceasing is not simply in the New J, but a gradual thing that is the result of the more general acceptance of the truth in the gospel of Christ (even where that acceptance is not to the level of tru belief).

Now I have heard of real miracles that are more than just a re diagnosis of cancer (or now lack of cancer). Some that were clearly seen by the people of distant native tribes who had never heard or believed the gospel. Those miracles were at the hand of missionaries that could hardly have expected such a miracle. But it caused those natives to become open to hear something new.

But in America it is almost unheard of that there are miracles that cannot be attributed to an unlikely probability that became the actual case. Cancer that goes away (or was thought of as misdiagnosed). Where are the cases of broken bones being healed as straight as new? Or eyes blind since Scarlet fever at childhood suddenly seeing again? I do not doubt that there is the hand of God in those less obvious miracles. But it mostly speaks to those who already believe, not those who do not.

I think it is a serious error to suggest that the reason for this is that we as Christians are so flawed that God cannot find anyone to do those miracles. (And I do not say you have suggested that.) I think it is that even the unbelievers in most of the civilized world are not unaware of the gospel at some level, and have no reason to simply disbelieve because there is no evidence of its truth. There is much evidence without miracles.

And, returning to apostles, there may be good cause to understand the term at two levels and see that there was — past tense — the place for the "special" case, along with the miracles. And while I'm sure that someone will find a reference to a miracle toward the end of the recorded accounts, I note that it was given as a significant thing in the early chapters of Acts, and it then diminished through the accounts.

And just like observing that Paul addressed a church by the city's name, it may be no more than observation without clear meaning. But it does seem to follow the pattern seen in the OT. It took miracles to get the CofI to leave Egypt. It took miracles to keep them on the trail to Canaan. But the observable miracles in front of the entire congregation almost ceased after they ended the purging of the land. There were some small miracles in front of a few at the hands of a prophet. But no more pillars of fire. Or seas parting. Or firstborn dying overnight. They knew those things. They continually spoke of them. God was established.

"You come here to our town in Greece speaking of a god that we have never heard of and have no reason to want to hear of." Follow that with a lame man walking, or a blind man seeing. Something that they know is a miracle. They will accept that what you speak comes from a real god. Even The God. But while many have rejected truly accepting Jesus as savior, they accept him as "another god" or a prophet of the true God. Yes, a miracle might change their mind. But it is clear that God is not out to simply convert everyone because he wows them with miracles. Fills their pantry and refrigerator. Gives them a job on Wall Street (with only a 6th grade education). The miracles are the introduction. In worldly terms, it is the display of power and/or intellect that causes people to take note. After that, the report of seeing the power is enough. God wants people to believe by choice. He no longer needs them be wowed to even consider. Almost all do that at some level. They have virtually all heard of him. They have a basis to accept or reject. They might need a personal account of what God has done for one or more of us. But God is not simply unknown.

So there may be apostles now. But from what I can see, apostles of the kind who started the spread of the gospel in Acts are no more. We still have missionaries. There are still miracles. But those miracles are seen by the world as misdiagnosis, flukes of probability, the ability of the body to heal itself, etc. I believe. But I already believe. It might be that on a one-off basis there will be an individual who comes to believe because of them. But not major portions of small cities. The miracle is hidden.

And the missionaries continue to bring the gospel to the world. But as commissions and, for the most part, with the appearance of common man bringing stories of a strange god. Yet when some begin to believe, their gift to the church in that place is obvious. Without them, there is no church. Because of them, there is.

And, in the mean time, the demonstrations of showmanship in "healing meetings" says much to those who already believe, but virtually nothing to the world. They continually are unable to find anything of substance actually healed. Nothing that was clearly there before and now gone. No change to the physical structure of the human body that causes the lame to walk. Just the weak to take enough steps to get some ecstatic people to cry out "Hallelujah!" Enough adrenaline and endorphins to overcome the pain the the back for a short time.

Do you need an apostle like Paul now? Do we need to see God's awesome power demonstrated to believe in him? I think the answer to both is "no." We believe. We know. A miracle will get us too caught up in miracles — like the Corinthians. Much better to take the faith that we have and live the life that Jesus commanded. Prove that God is by the fact that we now live righteously. That we deal with justice and not with greed and covetousness. Having an apostle will not cause any of that to be better. It will distract us to things that do not change our lives. To things that look good in meetings. We will need an apostle to tell us to get our act together. To throw out the open fornicator. To quit having a three-ring circus in our meetings. Corinth was the epitome of thinking about the status of teachers/evangelists/apostles. And of a kind of hierarchy of gifts of the Spirit, with the pinnacle being the miraculous.

And they were a mess.

Bless the little Lutheran church down the street in which the faithful believers come weekly with no expectation of miracles or visitation from an Apostle, then go to live their Christian faith in the workplace, marketplace, neighborhood, and the home. I fear that those flocking to showy meetings to see miracles and listen to a self-proclaimed apostle get what they deserve — a temporal rush of endorphins. And then that preacher leaves the church to go out to eat, dressed in his over-the-top garb, and treats the waiters like dirt, leaving no tip. And I'm not making this up.

[OBW]

And one short addendum.

It is true that Paul told the people to beware of false apostles. But that was written to people still living in the time of the original apostles. There is nothing in that charge that is automatically eternal on scope. It could be true. But it also could be relevant only to the era.

It is not stated. Reading it as if it was intended to be a charge to everyone in every time is a huge presumption.

And if there are or are not Apostles in that sense in this day, the fact is that they are not overtly demonstrated as they were in the first generation of the church. If we want to start a new "recovery" of the apostolic church, with the need for a modern apostle, then I sense an new LRC coming. I would suggest that despite the errors seen at various levels in various Christian groups, the church is, for the most part, exactly what it is meant to be. There is not some 2,000 year drought of apostleship. And no ones' recast of history will convince me that there are certain ones (almost all leading down a line to the exclusive Brethren and the LRC) that were apostles in some overt sense. It is just reheated leftovers from Lee. No more of that for me. The church is really in too good a shape to tolerate so much nay-saying.

And as was somewhat recently sung, "It's getting better all the time."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you ever just discuss the scriptures, or do you always resort to LRC rants?

After all I have written, you just obsess the word "unfortunately."

Besides my study of the word, I have just wasted my time in this discussion.

I doubt you really believe any of this and I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to write it.

I manifestly refer to scripture, why would you question that? What, do I not do it as much as you?

I'm not obsessing about anything, I'm just pointing out an obvious bias you have. You haven't demonstrated that without a doubt there are still apostles, yet you say it's unfortunate that people don't recognize there are. My question is real. Why it that unfortunate? What does the church lose by not using the term "apostle?"

Just because someone doesn't agree with you immediately or at all, Ohio, does not mean your time is wasted. I've considered you point of view. Can you return the favor without resorting to hypebole? I appreciate your study. But you are not the only person studying here. We need the whole Body. Try to remember that. Thank you.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If I had to define an apostle, I would look for a life-long, life-changing, pioneering work, marked by suffering and hardship, and blessed by the Head with both signs and much fruit. There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Who says apostles have to be recognized as apostles, anyway? They just carry out their commission to the Lord. All those who benefited from them need say is "Who was that masked man?" as they ride off into the sunset.
If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.
I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.

Originally Posted by OBW

So there may be apostles now. But from what I can see, apostles of the kind who started the spread of the gospel in Acts are no more.
Do you need an apostle like Paul now? Do we need to see God's awesome power demonstrated to believe in him? I think the answer to both is "no." We believe. We know. A miracle will get us too caught up in miracles — like the Corinthians. Much better to take the faith that we have and live the life that Jesus commanded. Prove that God is by the fact that we now live righteously. That we deal with justice and not with greed and covetousness. Having an apostle will not cause any of that to be better. It will distract us to things that do not change our lives. To things that look good in meetings. We will need an apostle to tell us to get our act together. To throw out the open fornicator. To quit having a three-ring circus in our meetings. Corinth was the epitome of thinking about the status of teachers/evangelists/apostles. And of a kind of hierarchy of gifts of the Spirit, with the pinnacle being the miraculous.

Lots of good posts!
I just quoted a few excerpts that caught my attention.

I think if we start with some of the "lowest common denominators" we can proceed to attempt to answer the question of whether their are apostles today.

We know that those whom the Lord Jesus directly appointed were apostles.
The apostle Paul confirmed this, and claimed that he was the last of such apostles - "and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also" (1 Corinthians 15:8)
These original apostles received the gospel and ministry DIRECTLY from the Lord Jesus. (In Paul's case he received directly from the resurrected Christ, but directly from Christ nonetheless)

So I think we can all agree that there are no more apostles that were appointed directly by the Lord Jesus Christ. There are no more apostles who carry with them THIS degree of apostolic function and authority.

If three are such apostles then I would have to see that they are functioning as the early apostles and command that degree of authority, and furthermore they must be doing so in the wider Body of Christ and NOT just within the bounds of some sect or organization.

So now I have probably blown my cover. I do not think that anyone is functioning AS THE EARLY APOSTLES today. Does this mean there are no apostles today? Let's discuss it.

[ZNPaaneah]

For me this discussion has gone from something trivial to something important. I don't mean to demean any posts, only that my initial reading was superficial.

To me the real issue is this, we are charged to examine if these things are so. Whether the person speaking it, as in WL's case, is considered "the apostle" or not. But the reality is, the more highly regarded some minister of the word is, the more important this becomes. I feel that is what we are doing (as I write this it occurs to me that a good name for an internet forum to do this would be "the Bereans").

The idea that someone is referred to as "The Apostle" would on the surface appear to be proof that they are in fact a liar. Yet I feel that is far too simplistic and ineffectual an argument.

What has hit me most is the fact that at the end of the age we will have two genuine witnesses, sent by God, to share a message with the entire earth. By every definition presented so far on this thread these two will be considered "apostles". They will have the sign of the apostles. At the same time that they are ministering we will also have two frauds: the antichrist and the false prophet. These two will also perform signs and wonders. So it is very clear to me that at the end of the age this discussion will come to a point and the salvation of many will be determined by how they treat this.

To me this proves beyond any reasonable doubt that we will have apostles on par with those at the beginning of this age. Arguing about whether there are any apostles on par with the 12 apostles is to me a non essential argument. What I do find compelling is to know how to discern the fraud from the genuine article.

That to me gives a much greater purpose to this forum than merely discussing WL. Was WL a fraud? If so, how do we know, if not how do know that?

[UntoHim]

ZNP,
Interesting correlation you make here.
If you are referring to the two witnesses in Revelation 11 then I think they could more accurately be designated as prophets (cf:"and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." REV 11:3. The term "apostles" is used in Revelation several times and if these two "witnesses" are going to be apostles I think the term would have been used here as well. Besides you are jumping ahead of us here all the way to the end times. We know for sure WHO WERE apostles (those appointed directly by the Lord Jesus), the task for us now may be to agree on who was/is an apostles in the subsequent time after the first century up to today.

Some people consider a number of the early "Church Fathers" to be apostles and I think there is an argument to be made for this view. In some cases they were only a generation behind the original scripture writing apostles (in some cases were mentored by them). It seems to me that, although their writings did not make it into the canon, they were relating truth to the Church with nearly the same authority and power as the original apostles. This, of course, is my personal opinion so you can take that for what it’s worth.

Then we can get into the real messy area of “apostolic succession”. If this was a forum for current and ex Catholics then we probably could spend day and night on this notion, but I think we may want to stir clear of this sticky wicket – we’ve got lot’s of other things to keep us busy!

One thing you mentioned really caught my attention:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What I do find compelling is to know how to discern the fraud from the genuine article. That to me gives a much greater purpose to this forum than merely discussing WL. Was WL a fraud? If so, how do we know, if not how do know that?

“discern the fraud from the genuine article”… Now THIS is more applicable to where we are today. The fact is, that just as we know the “genuine article” of our salvation – what is recorded for us in the Bible: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” - so too we can know the “genuine article” of an apostle. I won’t take the time here, and others have already laid out some of the biblical descriptions of an apostle, suffice it to say that we have not been left in the dark when it comes to this matter.

Finally, I’m going to repeat some of the things that were quotes from other posters (again)

Originally Posted by Ohio

There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.

Originally Posted by Igzy

If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.

One of the last time “apostles” is mentioned in the NT is in Revelation 2:2 – “that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” I like how the NIV has translated this part. Most translations render it “who call themselves apostles” – a closer rendering of the Greek word here is “claim to be”. Of course the determinative thing is at the end - “and have found them false”. How did these believers in Ephesus find these people who claimed to be an apostle as false? My best guess would be that they were NOT teaching and preaching what was being taught and preached by the original apostles. These are referred to as “the apostles teachings” several times in Acts. So it seems to me one of the best ways to find out whether or not somebody is an apostle is to compare and contract what they preach and teach with what is actually taught in the New Testament.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

ZNP,
Interesting correlation you make here.
If you are referring to the two witnesses in Revelation 11 then I think they could more accurately be designated as prophets (cf:"and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." REV 11:3. The term "apostles" is used in Revelation several times and if these two "witnesses" are going to be apostles I think the term would have been used here as well.

Your definition for apostle covered three criteria: they saw the Lord (these two witnesses met the Lord on top of the mtn and this is recorded in the gospels), they received their mission directly from the Lord (these two have received their mission directly from the Lord) and their audience was bigger than any one sect (these are speaking to the entire earth).

I gave a definition that no one has really disputed saying that an evangelist could be an apostle as well if their preaching was not merely to save souls but to also raise up a church. I also felt that a teacher could be an apostle as in the case of Martin Luther if the teaching unlocked truths to the entire body rather than teaching truths that the Body is aware of but perhaps new believers weren't.

OBW gave a number of possible definitions, one was that a missionary could be considered an apostle.

However, no one has said that an Apostle does not prophesy. On the contrary we all have agreed that the basic root is "sent one". These two are clearly "sent ones". The idea of an appointed mission from the Lord Jesus has been used by several, and again these two fulfill that point. Paul was a prophet, and he was an Apostle. John was a prophet and he was an apostle.

To prophesy means to speak for God. I see no contradiction at all in considering these two analogous to apostles based on all of the previously given definitions. To now come up with a new definition is akin to moving the goal posts.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Besides you are jumping ahead of us here all the way to the end times.

What?! Do you know something we don't? Please if you know when the end time is tell us. Why do you keep this to yourself? The Lord Jesus didn't know, Paul didn't know, but apparently you do?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

We know for sure WHO WERE apostles (those appointed directly by the Lord Jesus), the task for us now may be to agree on who was/is an apostles in the subsequent time after the first century up to today.

Perhaps I have not been following the thread correctly. I thought Ohio presented a long list of apostles based on the NT record and everyone quibbled over the list. As a result they started giving their own definitions. Yes we know for sure that there were 12 "apostles" and Paul as well. We also know for sure that Apostle was listed as one of the gifts given to man along with evagelists and pastors and teachers. No one has suggested that the other gifts ended with the 12 (and Paul also) but for some reason they have tried to distinguish with the term apostle even though it certainly was never stated by Paul. As a result this discussion veered into Igzy and others asking who we thought other apostles since the time of John might be. In response I said that the 2 witnesses would be. I think I have been following the thread quite accurately.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Some people consider a number of the early "Church Fathers" to be apostles ...

One thing you mentioned really caught my attention:

“discern the fraud from the genuine article”… Now THIS is more applicable to where we are today. The fact is, that just as we know the “genuine article” of our salvation – what is recorded for us in the Bible: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” - so too we can know the “genuine article” of an apostle. I won’t take the time here, and others have already laid out some of the biblical descriptions of an apostle, suffice it to say that we have not been left in the dark when it comes to this matter.

Finally, I’m going to repeat some of the things that were quotes from other posters (again)

One of the last time “apostles” is mentioned in the NT is in Revelation 2:2 – “that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” I like how the NIV has translated this part. Most translations render it “who call themselves apostles” – a closer rendering of the Greek word here is “claim to be”. Of course the determinative thing is at the end - “and have found them false”. How did these believers in Ephesus find these people who claimed to be an apostle as false? My best guess would be that they were NOT teaching and preaching what was being taught and preached by the original apostles. These are referred to as “the apostles teachings” several times in Acts. So it seems to me one of the best ways to find out whether or not somebody is an apostle is to compare and contract what they preach and teach with what is actually taught in the New Testament.

I was the one who first quoted this verse, if I remember correctly (if not, sorry), either way I have quoted this verse repeatedly. My point is simple, why would you even have to examine them if the NT teaching was that after the 12 apostles there were no more. The very fact that they were taking these claims seriously enough to examine them and then being commended by the Lord in this work tells me that there is no NT teaching that the gift of apostles ended with the 12 (plus Paul).

[ZNPaaneah]

Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

This sounds like the Lord Jesus has given them a mission, directly from Him.

Zechariah 4:11 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?
4:12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
4:13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
4:14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

The witnesses are the two olive trees and according to this they are the two anointed ones. "The anointed one" is also translated "The Christ" or "The Messiah". Like the Kings and Priests, to be anointed suggests having been given a job to do. Clearly these two witnesses are sent by the Lord to do a job (Zechariah 4 provides more details). Jesus also said He was sent, and He is called "the apostle" of our calling.

I think it is generally understood that when the Lord returns the virgins whose lamps are going out are instructed to go and buy oil from these two "olive trees". No doubt they prophesy, but they have been sent with the purpose to provide oil for the immature saints.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What has hit me most is the fact that at the end of the age we will have two genuine witnesses, sent by God, to share a message with the entire earth. By every definition presented so far on this thread these two will be considered "apostles". They will have the sign of the apostles. At the same time that they are ministering we will also have two frauds: the antichrist and the false prophet. These two will also perform signs and wonders. So it is very clear to me that at the end of the age this discussion will come to a point and the salvation of many will be determined by how they treat this.

What is never clear to me is how we can be clear that certain parts of Revelation and other apocalyptic revelations, which are by nature pictures, types, metaphors, etc., are intended to be read literally and which are to be read as pictures and metaphors.

And the typical answer is that if we think it could make sense literally, we read it that way, if it is does not, then we don't. We refuse to accept that even the somewhat commonplace language could be part of the metaphor.

Are you looking for a series of horses? Do you expect to see bowls in the sky pouring out all this stuff? Of course not. But since we can understand a literal resurrection of two ancient prophets appear as "two genuine witnesses." we insist that this must be literal.

But even if all that is true, what is it about having apostles, and looking for them, that benefits the church today? It seems that the focus on the individual leader is always the problem, not the solution. We get help from many sources. How many people today speak authoritatively in a manner that is square with the teachings from The apostles and hits us where we live today? Men (and women) who have become renowned, not for the size of the church they create, but the truth they speak. Some of them may be apostles. But we do them or us no service to speak of it in that manner.

This is not the era of the story-teller (the oral tradition) in which we continue to require the faithful retelling of what we otherwise do not have access to. We have the written word and an educated population that can read it. We still require those who give their occupation to the study of the word for our benefit. But while our education can makes us exceedingly foolish about how much we personally know and discern, we are able to see when teaching is going far from the source — the scripture. We can see the ridiculous extremes that Lee took so much of scripture. And even Nee. But we also are able to read through questionable teachers and pick and choose. That may be dangerous, not because we are exposed to error, but because we may not always discern the difference. Note the firestorm surrounding Rob Bell's Love Wins and the polarized camps for it entirely or opposed entirely. And while I think both are wrong, I believe that it is probably better that many of us not be exposed to the controversial because we are not all equipped to make good judgments.

But even when facing a controversy like the one surrounding Rob Bell, do you think that people are able to decide between truth and fiction/falsehood? I may think that many of the people I meet with are excessively dogmatic about certain things. But I also expect that they will not be lead astray by a false teacher. (Or even a false prophet or apostle.)

Why do we need to focus on them? Does scripture? Or does it mention them a few times? Are we putting the gospel of Christ — the one Jesus proclaimed — out of focus to zero-in on a small thing? Not saying it is irrelevant. But is there any evidence that it should be consuming?

We argue about elders, apostles, clergy, hierarchies, denominations. But seldom do we focus on what we are commanded to do. At some level, even our reading of the 7 letters in Revelation 2 and 3 is so focused on dealing with the things we see as their errors. But they are commended for their works. They are told to persevere. To rise above the problems. Not to fight the problems. For example, the thing that Laodicea was asked to do was not get hot or get cold, but open the door. It was not to rethink their riches, but to refocus their attention. And I don't think it even said to cast out the Jezebel. Not saying it shouldn't happen. But it was not a directive to do that, but to be sure that you are not caught up in it.

So we are no longer the church of the ground. But we might become the people of the apostles. But based on what command? On an uncertain record about them being gifts to the church? On the telling of a specific church at a specific time to discern false apostles? On a reference (in types and figures) to two apostles/prophets rising in the last days?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ask Awareness. I would find that shocking. During the Summer of 78 we spent months discussing the Max R expulsion. WL gave very clear messages concerning the truth. In those messages he strongly rebuked anyone who said he was the MOTA and said that if anyone said that you should stand up and rebuke them to their face. He even charged saints to stand up and rebuke him to his face if he said that. I would find it very hard to imagine that anyone could get away with what Mel Porter did to Awareness within a year of those messages.

I never heard anything about "rebuking him to his face," but that's what I did.

I remember walking into the meeting hall on 6th street (a former Baptist church) and being met by a group of brothers asking with excitement, "have you heard of The Flow of Oneness?" The flow of oneness was that the river of life flows from the throne to the apostle on the earth. These brothers were excited because it meant that Lee was the apostle, as was told in the flow of oneness flow.

And I rebuked them to their face. I said, "Yes I've heard of it, and if you believe it, you don't want to talk to me." They went back on their heels.

This was probably around 1980, or there about, maybe early 79.

Word went immediately to Mel Porter that I said this. Things went hard for me after that, as I caught Lee/Mel-bots one Sunday morning in a back room, the tape room, praying against me by name, as I walked up the stairs to pray with the elders.

I also pretty much got in Mel's face, as when I prayed with the elders, I prayed against the flow of oneness.

So rebuking in their face didn't go well for me. Maybe I should have called Witness Lee to have HIM rebuke Mel to his face.

But I doubt Lee would have done that, as Mel brought the flow of oneness from an elders meeting, as if coming from Anaheim ... and Mel was a dyed-in-the-wool Lee-bot.

[Paul Cox]

Whether or not you believe that there can be an official apostle today or not seems insignificant. It's just another issue for saints to shout past one another about. The real issue is that Witness Lee's promoting himself to be something he was not, and allowing his promoters to pump him up as something he was not has resulted in the tragedy that is the Living Stream Church.

Whether you call him "Apostle for the Age," or "Oracle," or "The Wise Master Builder," these are all titles we can argue on the particulars of. But the main issue is that Lee allowed himself to be regarded as all of these things. No matter how you slice it, that's just wrong and has no place in the church.

In his book, "Vision of the Age," it's clear that Lee believed in every "age" God only has "One Man" who has the blueprints for God's building tucked under his arm, and it is only that "One Man" who can bring forth God's vision for the Church on the entire Earth during that "age." Lee also leaves little doubt that he was that "One Man" for the age in which he lived.

That simply says it all. Whether or not you believe that there can be "Apostles" today, it is clear that Lee thought he was the one man for his age, just as he believed Paul was the one man for his age. So, yes, Lee believed he was on a par with Paul. Whether or not you believe he was an Apostle is immaterial.

Roger

[Cal]

In a theoretical sense and perfect world the title of apostle should not be objectional. Ohio and others have made this clear.

In a practical sense in the world we live in, though, the title has been used in recent centuries to prop up a person for the purpose of controlling others. In my opinion, the title apostle carries too much weight by virtue of association with the original apostles to be bestowed on anyone today (the 2 witnesses in Revelation might be the only exceptions.)

The problem is no one really knows for sure the extent of an apostle's authority. If we are to use the title of apostle, then understandable rules regarding the extent and limitations of an apostle's authority need to be put down in writing. "Unfortunately," as far as I know this has not been done in any satisfactory manner. In fact, the LRC exploited the vagueness of Lee's presumed authority as "apostle" to threaten, coerce and discipline members. All kinds of sheep herding and lamb sheering have been done in the name of his authority as "apostle."

If the LRC can do that then so can others.

I see little advantage to using the title today, and an awful lot of disadvantages. The Church knows who the gifted members are, with or with the titles. The Church knows who the sent ones and ambassadors are, with or without the title "apostle."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

Originally Posted by OBW

What is never clear to me is how we can be clear that certain parts of Revelation and other apocalyptic revelations, which are by nature pictures, types, metaphors, etc., are intended to be read literally and which are to be read as pictures and metaphors.

And the typical answer is that if we think it could make sense literally, we read it that way, if it is does not, then we don't. We refuse to accept that even the somewhat commonplace language could be part of the metaphor.

Are we supposed to consider the two witnesses to be "pictures, types, metaphors, etc?" I don't think so. How about when they "prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days?" That is not metaphorical either. There are signs, however, and there are a number of signs in this section of scripture that brother ZNP quotes.

"Sackcloth" is a sign, as are "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks." As to whether the "fire that proceedeth out of their mouth" is a sign or not is uncertain. What should be taken literally is that there will be two witnesses for over three years who possess extraordinary powers. This part is not a sign. This is a prophecy so that the people of God will know when the time comes.

When their testimony is completed, they will be killed somewhat near where the Lord was crucified. This is not a sign. This is a prophecy that will definitely come to pass.

I think it is an excellent point made by ZNP that there will be a great need for the people of God to have proper discernment. The peoples of the earth were all fooled. They felt that these two witnesses, who were prophets, had "tormented them," and thus declared a new global holiday when they were murdered by the "beast."

[Cal]

From the Internet...

The Meaning of the Word “Apostle”

In the New Testament, there are two basic meanings for the term “apostle.” In the most broad, general sense, any person who might be sent by God through the Church for a particular work, whether of leadership or not (cf. Phil. 2:25), can be classified under the term “apostle.” This broad meaning is derived from the correlation between the noun “apostle” and the Greek verb that means “to send.” Hence, in this very broad sense, there is no difficulty wth the concept that any Christian, in principle, can be called an apostle. For example, any person could be sent by a church to the mission field, and, in a broad, non-technical sense, this person in an “apostle” of God.

In the New Testament, however, the technical and restricted sense of the term is by far the most common. It refers only to the select group of the apostles of Christ. The word normally translated “apostle” (and its variations as noun and verb) is found 80 times in the Greek New Testament. It has the restricted and technical meaning of the word in no less than 73 of those instances. The broad, non-technical meaning (i.e., one who is “sent” for a task) is used only three times (John 13:16; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). One time it refers to Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1). The remaining three occurrences (Rom. 16:7; Acts 14:4; 14) present exegetical difficulties that make it difficult to determine with certainty if they are employed in the technical or non-technical sense.

There is no controversy about the broader, non-technical sense of the Word. It could be applied in reference to any person sent by the Church to a specific task – although it is arguably unwise to do so, since it is likely to generate confusion (because the New Testament uses it in the technical sense in the overwhelming majority of the instances).

[emphasis mine]

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In a theoretical sense and perfect world the title of apostle should not be objectional. Ohio and others have made this clear.

In a practical sense in the world we live in, though, the title has been used in recent centuries to prop up a person for the purpose of controlling others. In my opinion, the title apostle carries too much weight by virtue of association with the original apostles to be bestowed on anyone today (the 2 witnesses in Revelation might be the only exceptions.)

The problem is no one really knows for sure the extent of an apostle's authority. If we are to use the title of apostle, then understandable rules regarding the extent and limitations of an apostle's authority need to be put down in writing. "Unfortunately," as far as I know this has not been done in any satisfactory manner. In fact, the LRC exploited the vagueness of Lee's presumed authority as "apostle" to threaten, coerce and discipline members. All kinds of sheep herding and lamb sheering have been done in the name of his authority as "apostle."

If the LRC can do that then so can others.

I see little advantage to using the title today, and an awful lot of disadvantages. The Church knows who the gifted members are, with or with the titles. The Church knows who the sent ones and ambassadors are, with or without the title "apostle."

But even if I agree with everything you say and all of your reasons and concerns, from our own experience we know that it is a futile exercise to try and get some written agreement about the use of the word.

First, WL used many terms, not merely "the apostle" (wise master builder, MOTA, etc).
Second, the LRC used a whole teaching that made them feel they were superior to the rest of Christians because they understood that Apostles were not once for all. Unless their is a clear teaching in the NT (as their is concerning the 7th day adventist) your convention to steer clear of the term will be meaningless in real applications.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are we supposed to consider the two witnesses to be "pictures, types, metaphors, etc?" I don't think so. How about when they "prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days?" That is not metaphorical either. There are signs, however, and there are a number of signs in this section of scripture that brother ZNP quotes.

"Sackcloth" is a sign, as are "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks." As to whether the "fire that proceedeth out of their mouth" is a sign or not is uncertain. What should be taken literally is that there will be two witnesses for over three years who possess extraordinary powers. This part is not a sign. This is a prophecy so that the people of God will know when the time comes.

When their testimony is completed, they will be killed somewhat near where the Lord was crucified. This is not a sign. This is a prophecy that will definitely come to pass.

I think it is an excellent point made by ZNP that there will be a great need for the people of God to have proper discernment. The peoples of the earth were all fooled. They felt that these two witnesses, who were prophets, had "tormented them," and thus declared a new global holiday when they were murdered by the "beast."

Well also there are other prophesies throughout scripture, for example the Lord Jesus says "he is Elijah who is to come". This is mentioned in the gospels and also in the OT. It is clear from the scripture that Jewish scholars said that Christ could not come unless these two witnesses came first. No verse is of its own interpretation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

From the Internet...

The Meaning of the Word “Apostle”

In the New Testament, there are two basic meanings for the term “apostle.” In the most broad, general sense, any person who might be sent by God through the Church for a particular work, whether of leadership or not (cf. Phil. 2:25), can be classified under the term “apostle.” This broad meaning is derived from the correlation between the noun “apostle” and the Greek verb that means “to send.” Hence, in this very broad sense, there is no difficulty wth the concept that any Christian, in principle, can be called an apostle. For example, any person could be sent by a church to the mission field, and, in a broad, non-technical sense, this person in an “apostle” of God.

In the New Testament, however, the technical and restricted sense of the term is by far the most common. It refers only to the select group of the apostles of Christ. The word normally translated “apostle” (and its variations as noun and verb) is found 80 times in the Greek New Testament. It has the restricted and technical meaning of the word in no less than 73 of those instances. The broad, non-technical meaning (i.e., one who is “sent” for a task) is used only three times (John 13:16; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). One time it refers to Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1). The remaining three occurrences (Rom. 16:7; Acts 14:4; 14) present exegetical difficulties that make it difficult to determine with certainty if they are employed in the technical or non-technical sense.

There is no controversy about the broader, non-technical sense of the Word. It could be applied in reference to any person sent by the Church to a specific task – although it is arguably unwise to do so, since it is likely to generate confusion (because the New Testament uses it in the technical sense in the overwhelming majority of the instances).

[emphasis mine]

Good job in showing that there are two definitions and much of this debate has been between those using one of the two definitions.

However, I think in practical situations, such as the LRC and WL, we will find that groups refer to their "leader" in terms like "the apostle", etc. They will be able to support that claim with a Biblical basis that regardless of how tenuous they will never relinquish. I say this based on experience on this forum with how tightly opinions are held by most regardless of the evidence.

It would be nice if you could say the guy was a false teacher because he uses the term Apostle, that would be quick and easy. However, life is never so simple.

So what I would think would be much more useful is to decide what are the key factors that convinced you that WL was or was not "the apostle"? Also, what was the order? For example, were suspect behaviors the first thing that caused you to question that followed by further examination of the teachings. Or was it first the teachings that caused you to reconsider and the behaviors only confirmed your feeling.

Knowing the order would be helpful in understanding how to relate to those who hold that some teacher is "the apostle". Do they first need to see sin, or can they merely see the error in the teaching without seeing the sin.

Also, we have compared WL to Eli several times. The OT refers to Eli as the high priest. Do his failings annul his anointing? I am referring to Eli, I understand that Eli is a different case from WL, so one might feel Eli was still a High Priest irrespective of his failings whereas WL was not for some other reason.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It would be nice if you could say the guy was a false teacher because he uses the term Apostle, that would be quick and easy. However, life is never so simple.

So what I would think would be much more useful is to decide what are the key factors that convinced you that WL was or was not "the apostle"? Also, what was the order? For example, were suspect behaviors the first thing that caused you to question that followed by further examination of the teachings. Or was it first the teachings that caused you to reconsider and the behaviors only confirmed your feeling.

Well, the good news is that just because someone claims to be an apostle that is no reason to stand up and take notice and be on alert that he may well be one. I think the converse it true. It's up to a so-called apostle to prove his or her 1st rank apostleship.

Was Lee an apostle? In the broad sense, yes. In way the NT most commonly uses the term, no.

Does the Lord still send gifted leaders and visionaries to the Church? No doubt. Are we required to bestow them with the title apostle? No.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, the good news is that just because someone claims to be an apostle that is no reason to stand up and take notice and be on alert that he may well be one. I think the converse it true. It's up to a so-called apostle to prove his or her 1st rank apostleship.

Was Lee an apostle? In the broad sense, yes. In way the NT most commonly uses the term, no.

Does the Lord still send gifted leaders and visionaries to the Church? No doubt. Are we required to bestow them with the title apostle? No.

I am more concerned with helping those that are deceived.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What should be taken literally is that there will be two witnesses for over three years who possess extraordinary powers. This part is not a sign. This is a prophecy so that the people of God will know when the time comes.

I think it is an excellent point made by ZNP that there will be a great need for the people of God to have proper discernment. The peoples of the earth were all fooled. They felt that these two witnesses, who were prophets, had "tormented them," and thus declared a new global holiday when they were murdered by the "beast."

The two witnesses seem to be prophets, not apostles. They prophesy one thousand two hundred sixty days (Rev. 11:3). If Paul said in Ephesians 4 that God gave some as apostles and some as prophets, etc, and here are two sent ones prophesying, how can they be apostles?

Also, John presents himself in Revelation not as an apostle but as a prophet.

Paul said apostles would do works of power ("signs & wonders & miracles" 1 Cor 12. But someone who does works of power is not necessarily an apostle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

The two witnesses seem to be prophets, not apostles. They prophesy

Jesus prophesies, but He is called an apostle. John prophesies but He is an apostle. Paul said 2Tim 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Paul said he spoke in tongues and prophesied. So prophesying, speaking in tongues, healing, preaching, teaching, etc. Doesn't discount the fact that he is also an apostle.

[Cal]

More from the internet...

Apostles Today?

Somewhere in the middle are those who affirm the gift's activity today but in a more generic capacity. The word literally means "sent one," a designation that may be applied to many believers. But the middle-ground viewpoint acknowledges there is a difference between being gifted as an apostle (little "a") and possessing the authority of an Apostle (capital "A").

Terry King, pastor of Bridge of Life Church in Hagerstown, Maryland, says there are men and women currently doing apostolic ministry all over the world. As the executive director of Leadership Development Resources, a role that has King working with church leaders in over 20 nations, he has seen the evidence. "But," he adds, "very few of them recognize it as apostolic ministry, and they don't call it that."

The aversion to using any form of the word "apostle" is a holdover from the Reformation. "For hundreds of years Protestant churches have tried hard to not be Roman Catholic in terms of hierarchy and structure," says King. "But we still need leadership and structures. So the apostolic gift is still working—we just find new titles for it."

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

WL used many terms, not merely "the apostle" (wise master builder, MOTA, etc).

Second, the LRC used a whole teaching that made them feel they were superior to the rest of Christians because they understood that Apostles were not once for all. Unless their is a clear teaching in the NT (as their is concerning the 7th day adventist) your convention to steer clear of the term will be meaningless in real applications.

I remember an encomium by Lee about Nee called "A Seer of the Divine Revelation". Not sure where "Seer" comes in in Paul's hierarchy of Ephesians chapter 4, or the gifts in 1 Cor 12.

My impression is that vagueness suited the style. If needed, Lee could be a Bible expositor. A little chinese man who never told anyone what to do. If needed, he could be God's deputy authority, and God's present oracle, and the conduit for God's present move on the earth.

Or anything in between. Whatever suited the moment.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

John prophesies but He is an apostle.

John seems to be a prophet in Revelation 22:9

"But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

[UntoHim]

Of course apostles prophesy. They also teach and evangelize, but does one need to be an apostle to be a "teacher" or an "evangelist" or a "prophet"? I wouldn't think so. Let's not get too far off track here guys.

Again, I think we can agree that the original apostles were apostles because they were appointed directly by the Lord Jesus. We have the biblical record. We know what they taught. We know how conducted themselves. We also have a good record of what the 2nd generation of "apostles", teachers and scholars taught. There is a very good record of what was taught by the early "church fathers". I'm not saying that any one of these 2nd generation church leaders or church fathers were apostles per se, but we need to have some sort of baseline to work with. Then we need to take this baseline and try to transfer this as best we can to the realities that we face today.

The early apostles were not dealing with Christianity (or the world for that matter) as we know it today, so can we really expect modern "apostles" to function in the Body of Christ as the early apostles did? I wouldn't think so. Yes, I would expect that they should teach and preach the same things, and minister among the wider Body of Christ at large, but in this day and age could we expect that they would carry the same authority as the early apostles? I think this is a very important thing to discuss.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It would be nice if you could say the guy was a false teacher because he uses the term Apostle, that would be quick and easy. However, life is never so simple.

So what I would think would be much more useful is to decide what are the key factors that convinced you that WL was or was not "the apostle"? Also, what was the order? For example, were suspect behaviors the first thing that caused you to question that followed by further examination of the teachings. Or was it first the teachings that caused you to reconsider and the behaviors only confirmed your feeling.

It seemed to me, that suspect behaviors (citing the appointment of PL as a more egregious example) were the first to alarm brothers. In the case of the Anaheim elders in the 80's, serious offenses towards the saints alerted them to problems. As they furthered their investigation, talking to others in the know, they were forced to examine teachings that enabled practices to go awry. Probably to most brothers it was cumulative, with both teachings and practices becoming suspect, once their "line in the sand" was crossed.

Even more concerning is why would a ministry make these outrageous claims of MOTA, "The" Apostle, or the acting god. What motives would cause them to push these assertions upon all the LC's. It was not just an effort to "help" know some newly "recovered" truths. I am convinced that these claims were only made to silence the saints while LSM discredited their own critics. These claims were internal to the Recovery. Externally they were denied.

In other words, once WL and LSM got exposed, on numerous occasions, for their unrighteous activities (think Daystar, secret bank accounts, abuse of churches, lording it over the flock, immoralities, etc.) they needed an extra set of "credentials" internally to maintain control over the LC's. In effect, these "credentials" become the same to their members as the "infallibility of the pope" doctrine became to Catholics.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seemed to me, that suspect behaviors (citing the appointment of PL as a more egregious example) were the first to alarm brothers. In the case of the Anaheim elders in the 80's, serious offenses towards the saints alerted them to problems. As they furthered their investigation, talking to others in the know, they were forced to examine teachings that enabled practices to go awry. Probably to most brothers it was cumulative, with both teachings and practices becoming suspect, once their "line in the sand" was crossed.

Even more concerning is why would a ministry make these outrageous claims of MOTA, "The" Apostle, or the acting god. What motives would cause them to push these assertions upon all the LC's. It was not just an effort to "help" know some newly "recovered" truths. I am convinced that these claims were only made to silence the saints while LSM discredited their own critics. These claims were internal to the Recovery. Externally they were denied.

In other words, once WL and LSM got exposed, on numerous occasions, for their unrighteous activities (think Daystar, secret bank accounts, abuse of churches, lording it over the flock, immoralities, etc.) they needed an extra set of "credentials" internally to maintain control over the LC's. In effect, these "credentials" become the same to their members as the "infallibility of the pope" doctrine became to Catholics.

Is this correct?

1. Unrighteous Acts
2. Cover up, smear campaign
3. New teachings to justify cover up and smear campaign
4. Abuse of saints to keep them silent
5. New teachings to justify abuse of saints
6. Public Excommunication justified by bogus reasons.

So whereas a teaching may sound reasonable out of context, once the context of the unrighteous act, abuse of saints, or using it to justify excommunication is realized this was the way in which saints were roused from slumber?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The aversion to using any form of the word "apostle" is a holdover from the Reformation. "For hundreds of years Protestant churches have tried hard to not be Roman Catholic in terms of hierarchy and structure," says King. "But we still need leadership and structures. So the apostolic gift is still working—we just find new titles for it."

This may help to explain why the word "apostle" is mostly shunned today, in favor of the word "missionary." Rome has spoiled many N.T. terms, another of which is "church," which is why many prefer "assembly."

In the Pentecostal movement, like the Recovery, they have decided to "recover" the word "apostle," which makes it necessary for the body of Christ to be able to prove who is an apostle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course apostles prophesy. They also teach and evangelize, but does one need to be an apostle to be a "teacher" or an "evangelist" or a "prophet"? I wouldn't think so. Let's not get too far off track here guys.

Again, I think we can agree that the original apostles were apostles because they were appointed directly by the Lord Jesus. We have the biblical record. We know what they taught. We know how conducted themselves. We also have a good record of what the 2nd generation of "apostles", teachers and scholars taught. There is a very good record of what was taught by the early "church fathers". I'm not saying that any one of these 2nd generation church leaders or church fathers were apostles per se, but we need to have some sort of baseline to work with. Then we need to take this baseline and try to transfer this as best we can to the realities that we face today.

The early apostles were not dealing with Christianity (or the world for that matter) as we know it today, so can we really expect modern "apostles" to function in the Body of Christ as the early apostles did? I wouldn't think so. Yes, I would expect that they should teach and preach the same things, and minister among the wider Body of Christ at large, but in this day and age could we expect that they would carry the same authority as the early apostles? I think this is a very important thing to discuss.

Igzy has done a nice job of presenting a definition for apostle, of showing that the work of an apostle is still being done today. He has also done a nice job of explaining the aversion to the term.

However, under every definition presented so far, by everyone on this site, the two witnesses in Revelation can be considered apostles. The fact that Revelation says they prophesied does not negate this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is this correct?

1. Unrighteous Acts
2. Cover up, smear campaign
3. New teachings to justify cover up and smear campaign
4. Abuse of saints to keep them silent
5. New teachings to justify abuse of saints
6. Public Excommunication justified by bogus reasons.

So whereas a teaching may sound reasonable out of context, once the context of the unrighteous act, abuse of saints, or using it to justify excommunication is realized this was the way in which saints were roused from slumber?

That would be correct!

One day years ago I had this sickening feeling within upon realizing that volumes of teachings from WL/LSM were simply justifications for "crimes."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy has done a nice job of presenting a definition for apostle, of showing that the work of an apostle is still being done today. He has also done a nice job of explaining the aversion to the term.

However, under every definition presented so far, by everyone on this site, the two witnesses in Revelation can be considered apostles. The fact that Revelation says they prophesied does not negate this.

I would think that their apostleship would match that of Paul and Peter and John.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are we supposed to consider the two witnesses to be "pictures, types, metaphors, etc?" I don't think so.

Why do you think not? I'm not saying they are not literal. But there is evidence that the whole thing is pictures, types, and metaphors.

Originally Posted by Ohio

How about when they "prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days?" That is not metaphorical either.

Again, why not? A week is not a 7 days. 7 weeks is not 49 days. What makes 1,230 literal, but 49 not?

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Sackcloth" is a sign, as are "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks."

Is sackcloth a sign? It was literal in its use in OT times. What makes it a sign now?

I must admit that I probably agree that it is a sign. Or a picture. Or part of a metaphor. Why are other potentially literal items not signs, pictures, or metaphors?

Originally Posted by Ohio

As to whether the "fire that proceedeth out of their mouth" is a sign or not is uncertain. What should be taken literally is that there will be two witnesses for over three years who possess extraordinary powers. This part is not a sign.

Again. Why? Because we can create a structure in which it makes sense? What if that is not God's structure?

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a prophecy so that the people of God will know when the time comes.

But I thought that the people of God get raptured. If that is the case, why do they care? (Don't rush to answer this one. I must admit that I have some serious problems with much of the dispensational/rapture theology. I'm not sure who will or won't be around to care.)

Originally Posted by Ohio

When their testimony is completed, they will be killed somewhat near where the Lord was crucified. This is not a sign. This is a prophecy that will definitely come to pass.

And every prophecy that has ever come to pass was, upon hindsight, found to read literally? Actually, fairly few are that direct. There is something that fits. And once the real deal comes, then you understand it. But if it was so obvious, then they would have been looking for a baby born in Bethlehem that would be the Messiah. But the religious know-it-alls had no clue. It was not because the prophecy had been forgotten. It was that it was not understood. It was not obvious before it came to be. And the birth of a child would not prove it true. The results of a life born in Bethlehem would.

We can argue forever about how to read the prophecies in Revelation. If we are around to see it play out, then we will actually realize the meaning of them. And we may be very surprised as to what was pretty straight forward and what was not. There may be little about a literal 10-headed/horned (whatever) beast that we now want to call the European Union. A couple of centuries ago there was something else that was presumed to be the precursor of the beast. And the final battle may not actually be in the literal Kidron Valley. Or the Mount of Olives might not actually split open to save the Jews. But those things stand for something. Something that should keep you watching. And virtually every generation from the first until now had something to watch for. And I'm not suggesting that it is a hoax of generalities to keep us toeing the line. It is real. But what is literal may not look anything like what we are expecting. Yet if we are here to see it, I expect we will understand it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That would be correct!

One day years ago I had this sickening feeling within upon realizing that volumes of teachings from WL/LSM were simply justifications for "crimes."

I think there may be more to it than that.

The Lord said "the hireling careth not for the sheep but when the wolf comes"

1. I think in the abuse, cover up, smear campaign, and justification there is evidence of a lack of concern for the sheep. So evidence that someone does not care for the sheep is clearly evidence that they are a hireling, whereas someone who is willing to risk his life for the sheep would be evidence of being one with the Lord. So the BBs rubber stamp approach is evidence that they are hirelings.

2. There are "wolves". Clearly, the goal of the wolf is to devour the sheep. So among the false prophets and false apostles evidence that the person is "devouring" the sheep as in Daystar, or the PL travesty, etc would be evidence of the person being a wolf. Based on this I would say that there is evidence that WL was a wolf. To me speaking Biblical truths is not evidence of either side. Satan can appear as an angel of light. Standing up to the wolves as JI and others did is evidence that these are genuine shepherds of the sheep, whereas the quarantine of TC, and covering the eyes concerning PL and JI is evidence of hirelings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think there may be more to it than that.

The Lord said "the hireling careth not for the sheep but when the wolf comes"

1. I think in the abuse, cover up, smear campaign, and justification there is evidence of a lack of concern for the sheep. So evidence that someone does not care for the sheep is clearly evidence that they are a hireling, whereas someone who is willing to risk his life for the sheep would be evidence of being one with the Lord. So the BBs rubber stamp approach is evidence that they are hirelings.

2. There are "wolves". Clearly, the goal of the wolf is to devour the sheep. So among the false prophets and false apostles evidence that the person is "devouring" the sheep as in Daystar, or the PL travesty, etc would be evidence of the person being a wolf. Based on this I would say that there is evidence that WL was a wolf. To me speaking Biblical truths is not evidence of either side. Satan can appear as an angel of light. Standing up to the wolves as JI and others did is evidence that these are genuine shepherds of the sheep, whereas the quarantine of TC, and covering the eyes concerning PL and JI is evidence of hirelings.

Some posters feel JI was a hireling because he left.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some posters feel JI was a hireling because he left.

I would give that more credence if he left quietly.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why do you think not? I'm not saying they are not literal. But there is evidence that the whole thing is pictures, types, and metaphors.

Not a chance, that would be a worthless book.

Read Revelations. Some of the signs are interpreted for us in v1.20.

v1.1 says, "show to His slaves what must swiftly take place, and He made it known by signs." If the whole thing is taken metaphorically, what will be the basis for the interpretation? For example, the lampstand is a sign, the church is not. But if the church is also a metaphor, what basis for interpretation can possibly exist?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some posters feel JI was a hireling because he left.

I should correct this. That wasn't exactly correct.

The poster felt that some GLA leaders, many of whom I knew personally, who left quietly after being much abused by TC, were thus "hirelings."

I am still undecided.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I should correct this. That wasn't exactly correct.

The poster felt that some GLA leaders, many of whom I knew personally, who left quietly after being much abused by TC, were thus "hirelings."

I am still undecided.

To me, ever since the days of George Washington you know that it is better to live again to fight another day. Hit and run is better than hit and get squashed.

MacArthur was brilliant in retreat as well as in attack.

King David is another great example.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I don't stand with running and hiding, but to provide a thorough account and at the same time take a stand that eliminates any thought of rebellion or self serving may have been the best way to go.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To me, ever since the days of George Washington you know that it is better to live again to fight another day. Hit and run is better than hit and get squashed.

MacArthur was brilliant in retreat as well as in attack.

King David is another great example.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I don't stand with running and hiding, but to provide a thorough account and at the same time take a stand that eliminates any thought of rebellion or self serving may have been the best way to go.

I should say that those who left did talk privately to those who asked. I have not found anything that was written, however. In this regard, related to all the storms that originated in Anaheim, TC used to boast that no brother under his care ever became a problem to the Recovery.

If a leader needs his former workers to be silent at their departure, then he is not beyond reproach, and must have much to hide. There is no record in the N.T. of Paul abusing his co-workers, so LC leaders who abuse one another are without Biblical support. Thus they desire departing workers to maintain "radio silence" at all costs.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I should say that those who left did talk privately to those who asked. I have not found anything that was written, however. In this regard, related to all the storms that originated in Anaheim, TC used to boast that no brother under his care ever became a problem to the Recovery.

If a leader needs his former workers to be silent at their departure, then he is not beyond reproach, and must have much to hide. There is no record in the N.T. of Paul abusing his co-workers, so LC leaders who abuse one another are without Biblical support. Thus they desire departing workers to maintain "radio silence" at all costs.

An elder should be beyond reproach, therefore you don't need to worry about someone "making trouble".

Second, an accusation against an elder should not be heard unless by 2 or 3 credible witnesses. This forum has provided that and more. So if the LRC refuses to hear they have an issue with the Lord Jesus. It is not rebellion to bring an accusation against an elder, if done properly and according to the scripture.

Third, it is perfectly reasonable to examine a witness. You might be interested in motive or credibility issues. Therefore, taking a stand outside of the LRC where you have nothing to gain other than standing for the truth in love may be where the Lord has led you.

Fourth, many of the witnesses on this forum are elders. JI is merely one example. Therefore they also should be afforded the same standard. I think it is fair to consider WL and KR as credible witnesses, but on the other hand I think it is equally fair to consider JI, JS, and BM credible witnesses.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But even if I agree with everything you say and all of your reasons and concerns, from our own experience we know that it is a futile exercise to try and get some written agreement about the use of the word.

I wasn't literally asking for a written agreement. I was rhetorically reinforcing why we shouldn't use the title apostle.

First, WL used many terms, not merely "the apostle" (wise master builder, MOTA, etc).

Second, the LRC used a whole teaching that made them feel they were superior to the rest of Christians because they understood that Apostles were not once for all. Unless their is a clear teaching in the NT (as their is concerning the 7th day adventist) your convention to steer clear of the term will be meaningless in real applications.

It won't be meaningless if someone takes the advice. It's not a matter of black-and-white proof. It's a matter of persuading people with wisdom. Reasonable people get it. It's the fringes that never do. But it is possible to reduce the number of potential people on the fringe.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you need an apostle like Paul now? Do we need to see God's awesome power demonstrated to believe in him? I think the answer to both is "no." We believe. We know. A miracle will get us too caught up in miracles — like the Corinthians. Much better to take the faith that we have and live the life that Jesus commanded. Prove that God is by the fact that we now live righteously.

My current "apostolic baseline" is what I quoted earlier from Acts 2, Hebrews 2, and 2 Corinthians 12.

Signs

Wonders

Miracles

Now, 2 caveats quickly spring to mind. First, doing anything in a showy way, to display something before others, is verboten. The devil is to crafty and insinuating.

No, work in a hidden way. Like Jesus, who would often drive the crowds away (and even most of the 12) and work with just a few. Work before God.

Second, I relate "Signs, wonders, and miracles" to the word "power", as in, "You have a little power and have not denied my name." That power must be evident in the believer, and will be amplified in God's special "sent ones", whether we term them messengers or apostles or prophets or whatnot.

This power need not be to lengthen someone's leg, or straighten someone's features (though it may), or to cause it not to rain for three years (though it may), but rather the power to change people's lives. Those who wept will be comforted, those who sighed will rejoice. Those in the darkness of despair will sense light and hope, and those in the prison of "me, me, me" will sense how much God loves everybody else (imagine that!). There are great works of power waiting to be done by us all, which in our own small way may be "signs, wonders, and miracles".

Lee was, at heart, a "bible expositor", not a prophet or apostle. He liked to talk about the Bible. That is my impression. And he arguably changed lives, including mine.

But again, two caveats come to mind for "Lee the Bible expositor". First, his expositions were riddled with subjectivity, partiality, bias, error, and cant (as are most, if not all of our efforts). He was no all-seeing "oracle". To paint him (or anyone) as such quickly evokes the great scene in the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain!"

Second, Lee should probably disqualified from any "higher office" in our estimation, like an apostle or prophet, by the fact that he did, in fact, covet people's gold and silver (Acts 20:33). I am thinking specifically of the Daystar fiasco. There may be other instances, but Daystar alone is enough. We have enough evidence here to try the claims of those who claim "Lee the apostle", and find them to be false.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think there may be more to it than that.

The Lord said "the hireling careth not for the sheep but when the wolf comes"

1. I think in the abuse, cover up, smear campaign, and justification there is evidence of a lack of concern for the sheep. So evidence that someone does not care for the sheep is clearly evidence that they are a hireling, whereas someone who is willing to risk his life for the sheep would be evidence of being one with the Lord. So the BBs rubber stamp approach is evidence that they are hirelings.

2. There are "wolves". Clearly, the goal of the wolf is to devour the sheep. So among the false prophets and false apostles evidence that the person is "devouring" the sheep as in Daystar, or the PL travesty, etc would be evidence of the person being a wolf. Based on this I would say that there is evidence that WL was a wolf. To me speaking Biblical truths is not evidence of either side. Satan can appear as an angel of light. Standing up to the wolves as JI and others did is evidence that these are genuine shepherds of the sheep, whereas the quarantine of TC, and covering the eyes concerning PL and JI is evidence of hirelings.

Paul's warning to the Ephesian elders has been quite helpful to me. He cited two types of dangers in addition to that of the "hirelings."

Acts 20.29-30 I know after my departure, fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And from among you yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.

Most LCers will not accept that WL/LSM are wolves in sheep's clothing, but when considering all of LSM's wild claims about WL, during the many times of coercion surrounding the New Way, in light of Paul's warning here, they have to stop and think.

[OBW]

One factor in the discussion on apostles that has been in my mind but not brought up is Paul's comment about how "all of Asia" had left him.

I somehow sense that much of the discussion here would assume that he should start excommunicating those who lead in those churches. But he doesn't even suggest that their charters be rejected, or that someone else go and start new churches there so that Paul's newly appointed elders could reign.

This seems to put a different status on the apostles. They were gifts to the establishment of the churches. They were not authoritarian leaders of those churches or "super elders." Even Paul's letter to Corinth in which he directs them concerning the man having an affair with his stepmother does not insist that they do it "or else." He says they should. He says if he were there he would. But he is not and all he can do is give advice.

It is a gift to them. They are free to leave the package unopened. Bad choice, but an option.

[ZNPaaneah]

Yes, along those lines the Lord said "call no man your father" because God is your father.

Likewise I have considered that you should call no man "The Apostle" because the Lord Jesus is "the Apostle". Even at the time of Paul he wasn't "the" Apostle.

Ultimately the authority was not with James or Peter or Paul. It was with the Lord.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, along those lines the Lord said "call no man your father" because God is your father.

Likewise I have considered that you should call no man "The Apostle" because the Lord Jesus is "the Apostle". Even at the time of Paul he wasn't "the" Apostle.

Ultimately the authority was not with James or Peter or Paul. It was with the Lord.

Great point about calling any man "The ......."

In church history, Rome latched onto Peter as "The" first great apostle. Probably in reaction to this, Protestants favored Paul, with the exclusive wing extolling Paul as "The Apostle," and "The MOTA." What somewhat sounded benign concerning Peter and Paul actually laid the groundwork for modern day leaders to fill their shoes. WL elevated Paul by accentuating Peter's failures. Since Luke wrote Acts, early church history is biased in Paul's favor.

Paul told us plainly that he was "less than the least," and constantly pointed the church to Christ the Head. I believe Christians on their own reading the Bible would not elevate one minister over another, and Corinth was a constant warning regarding this. It was WL and his loyal lackeys who thrust these teachings upon the LC's, with the motives of grandeur and power. Things the Bible constantly warned us against.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are "wolves". Clearly, the goal of the wolf is to devour the sheep. So among the false prophets and false apostles evidence that the person is "devouring" the sheep as in Daystar, or the PL travesty, etc would be evidence of the person being a wolf. Based on this I would say that there is evidence that WL was a wolf.

Lee was a second- or third-rate Bible expositor, when compared to Origen and Erasmus. But he was certainly a better Bible expositor than I, and many pastors and reverends out there tending to the flock.

The problem with Lee was that he was held up as more than merely a Bible expositor. He was, variously, a "seer" or "oracle", conveying the depths of God's heart, and God's plan, to we dull and sightless ones. He was God's "deputy authority", able to raise up and depose various underlings, ("elders and co-workers") who in turn were to shepherd the flock. He was the "apostle of the age", able to guide the whole body of Christ on the earth through organizing various "moves of the Lord". And so forth.

So if we try him and find him false (Daystar, Philip Lee), then yes, he is a wolf. A wolf is a sheep who oversteps his allotted portion and begins to bite and devour the other sheep (I think of verse 6 of Jude, with angels who didn't stay in their allotted place but overstepped their position). Better to be a bible expositor who in hindsight is arguably a prophet, oracle, or apostle, than a supposedly super apostle who was in fact just a second-rate bible expositor.

On a related note (sheep, wolves, etc) it struck me today that sheep pens, though somewhat confining, and probably boring (lacking lush green grass and smoothly flowing rivers and mountain vistas and such), are at least safe. If Jesus leads you out of the sheep fold, and brings you to green pastures and beside still waters, fine. You feast and remain safe. But the wolf will also try to lure you out. He will get you to leave the fold, and then he will devour you.

In the 1970s there was quite a bit of "non-traditional" christianity going on, and suddenly it dawned on the flock that some of these leaders, who offered "different" and "fresh" teachings, were actually wolves. I am thinking of ones like Jim Jones, and David Moses Berg. Jim Jones had been a Methodist pastor. Berg was I think from the Christian and Misssionary Alliance. They stressed "ignored Bible truths" to their audience, and led their flocks outside the sheep pen, and then they devoured them.

With Philip Lee and Daystar, I am beginning to suspect that Lee was really a wolf.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, along those lines the Lord said "call no man your father" because God is your father.
Likewise I have considered that you should call no man "The Apostle" because the Lord Jesus is "the Apostle". Even at the time of Paul he wasn't "the" Apostle.
Ultimately the authority was not with James or Peter or Paul. It was with the Lord.

That was my point when I recently quoted Hebrews chapter one. Jesus is the High Priest; Jesus is the Mouthpiece of God; Jesus is God's Oracle; Jesus is God's Deputy Authority; Jesus is the Apostle of the Age; Jesus is the Minister of the New Covenant. God has spoken in many ways in the past, and today He is speaking to us in His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, and through whom He has made all things.

Anyone who becomes the subject of our attention as the conduit of God's speaking has arguably diverted us from our path. There is only one (speaking) Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. And every single one of us is, or can be, His speaking "deputies". Some of us have more capacity and so forth, but if their gifts (i.e. "ministries") become our focus then we have mis-aimed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee was a second- or third-rate Bible expositor, when compared to Origen and Erasmus. But he was certainly a better Bible expositor than I, and many pastors and reverends out there tending to the flock.

Despite the language issues, and more correctly, the difficulty in understanding him through his accent at times, he was a fairly charismatic speaker. He had a learned manner with respect to so much of the Bible. But even without Daystar and his sons, the way he took and manhandled scripture does not allow me to treat him as so great a Bible expositor relative to the average small-church pastor. And maybe even a bunch of us, including you.

My problem with giving him any significant marks in Bible exposition is that it would seem that he went at it with a goal to get a result, therefore (in hindsight) almost everything he said needed more than casual checking. His methods of Bible exposition seem too much like setting up experiments to prove or disprove something, then setting out to find only positive results, even by reinterpreting negative results.

I suspect that the average small-congregation pastor at least relies on many sources including sound commentaries and other writings. While Lee obviously did not make everything up, what he did get from others did not often retain its original integrity.

But then the very fact of the Daystar and Philip Lee fiascoes (not to mention those going back to Taipei) suggests that his skills at Bible exposition should be deemed irrelevant and he be cast aside as a wolf. As someone trying to feed his belly at the expense of the flock. So even if a whole lot of what he said was true, and even some of it profound, he loses credibility and should not even be consulted.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

My problem with giving [Lee] any significant marks in Bible exposition is that it would seem that he went at it with a goal to get a result, therefore (in hindsight) almost everything he said needed more than casual checking. His methods of Bible exposition seem too much like setting up experiments to prove or disprove something, then setting out to find only positive results, even by reinterpreting negative results.

To some extent we all do this; we find some verses which support our current fancy, and wave them in the air to show our theory/practice/obsession/interpretation is "biblical". All other biblical references which don't support our theory are, of course, ignored.

To get back to the subject of "apostles"... I was looking at what Paul considered as "marks of the apostles", in 2 Corinthians 12:12

NIV: "I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles."

I don't think Paul is being sarcastic here, even though he has just finished mentioning the 'super-apostles'...

Now, the LSM interpretation is that since there were apostles delineated in Ephesians 4:11 (and elsewhere) and it doesn't say that they were to be phased out, then the office of apostle must continue after Paul, John, Peter et al. There should be apostles (somewhere) today. Logical.

Then, when you ask them about the marks of a true apostle, about signs and wonders and miracles, they say, "Well, that was just for the first century. The age of miracles is over." Also logical.

So one age, "The age of the apostles" is not over, because the Bible doesn't indicate that it was supposed to terminate.

And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.

Got it? It's quite simple, really.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.

Got it? It's quite simple, really.

It is simple. If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Got it? It's quite simple, really.

It seems to me that only Paul emphasized his Apostleship. I don't remember any of the others calling themselves like "Peter an Apostle." I believe the reason for this was the ongoing efforts of the Jews to discredit him. Still Paul never said he was the MOTA, or The Apostle. This tremendous leap of credential facilitated much corruption in the Recovery.

I remember hearing for years how the Recovery was built upon a "man for every age." This distorted view of church history has damaged all those who received it. Paul said "all are yours." He also said that those who are "of men" are fleshly. It just amazes me that we studied those verses so many time, and never made the "connection."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember hearing for years how the Recovery was built upon a "man for every age." .... It just amazes me that we studied those verses so many time, and never made the "connection."

I hope that I am clear that I am not presenting some alternative "truth" to the LSM/BBs, but rather attempting to show how our thinking can impinge upon our ability to make connections in the written word. We ignore what is convenient, and trumpet the rest.

I am glad for all the points of view out there. I hold up what is interesting and useful to me, but (hopefully) realize that my points are not necessarily more valid than others'.

"In the counsel of many is safety"... from Solomon the wise.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

It is simple. If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.

I'm with you on this one, Harold. 2 Cor 12:12.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.

And if the supposed apostle is deceased, bring a cadaver and lay it on his/her grave, and see if it comes back to life. I am thinking of the case of Elisha's tomb in 2 Kings 13:20,21.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

And if the supposed apostle is deceased, bring a cadaver and lay it on his/her grave, and see if it comes back to life. I am thinking of the case of Elisha's tomb in 2 Kings 13:20,21.

I wonder if it would work on Witness Lees' grave??? So we can finally be completely done with his claim to apostlehood.

Someone take their dead cat or dog to his grave, just to put it to rest once and for all, or vindicate Lee's claim as the one and only apostle on this earth in this age. Depending, of course, if the cat or dog comes to life, or remains dead.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

So one age, "The age of the apostles" is not over, because the Bible doesn't indicate that it was supposed to terminate.

And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.

Got it? It's quite simple, really.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm with you on this one, Harold. 2 Cor 12:12.

Did Apostle Paul lose his powers in II Tim 4.20b?

Perhaps Paul was affected by Kryptonite in the end?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did Apostle Paul lose his powers in II Tim 4.20b?

Perhaps Paul was affected by Kryptonite in the end?

That's when he was Clark Kent. He said he was all things to all people....

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did Apostle Paul lose his powers in II Tim 4.20b?

Perhaps Paul was affected by Kryptonite in the end?

Signs and wonders were to attest to apostleship, not to fix up whomever happened to be sick. Even Superman didn't save everyone.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It is simple. If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Signs and wonders were to attest to apostleship, not to fix up whomever happened to be sick. Even Superman didn't save everyone.

Then why be so supportive if this prior, extremely degrading post?

This is your second "apostolic flip-flop" that has thrown me for a loop.

Not to worry, liotta is quick to point out every time I appear to "ride my see-saw." Ooops, there I go again, I'm turning blue.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why be so supportive if this prior, extremely degrading post?

This is your second "apostolic flip-flop" that has thrown me for a loop.

Not to worry, liotta is quick to point out every time I appear to "ride my see-saw." Ooops, there I go again, I'm turning blue.

Awareness' point was rhetoric hyperbole, not to be taken literally. His point was if someone claims to be an apostle, ask them to do a miracle. If they can't, ignore their claim. I agree with that. Tell them to put up or shut up.

That doesn't mean there isn't apostolic-like work being done these days. It just means that someone who claims to be an apostle these days is looking for more than doing a work. He's looking for recognition and a following. If he wants me to follow him he'd better produce the goods.

I can't recall any significant work being done in the last 1800 years by anyone who claimed to be an apostle. All the ones I know of turned out to be vastly overrated, to say the least.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That doesn't mean there isn't apostolic-like work being done these days. It just means that someone who claims to be an apostle these days is looking for more than doing a work. He's looking for recognition and a following.

Interestingly the Dominionists, The New Apostolic Reformation Movement, behind the religious right running for president these days, claim to be apostles and prophets.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Awareness' point was rhetoric hyperbole, not to be taken literally. His point was if someone claims to be an apostle, ask them to do a miracle. If they can't, ignore their claim. I agree with that. Tell them to put up or shut up.

And that's my point. Thank you for spelling it out so succinctly.

Not only would awareness's "test" cause every true apostle to flunk, but even our Heavenly Apostle would flunk that test. While on earth, the Jews attempted to "play" the Lord on numerous occasions, asking for signs and wonders. Even the Roman guards taunted Him saying, "play the prophet." He did nothing to oblige them. He appeared to them as totally incompetent, like some dumb sheep headed for slaughter. He never came to this earth to be a miracle worker.

Our Lord Jesus refused to be the circus performer that you and awareness seem to desire.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And that's my point. Thank you for spelling it out so succinctly.

Not only would awareness's "test" cause every true apostle to flunk, but even our Heavenly Apostle would flunk that test. While on earth, the Jews attempted to "play" the Lord on numerous occasions, asking for signs and wonders. Even the Roman guards taunted Him saying, "play the prophet." He did nothing to oblige them. He appeared to them as totally incompetent, like some dumb sheep headed for slaughter. He never came to this earth to be a miracle worker.

Our Lord Jesus refused to be the circus performer that you and awareness seem to desire.

But we're not talking about Jesus. We're talking about those who claim to be apostles today. And it's no skin of my nose if you just take their claims willy-nilly. So have at it. Hook up to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that call themselves apostles. Hook up with the dominionists if you like ... they claim to be apostles....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why be so supportive if this prior, extremely degrading post?

This is your second "apostolic flip-flop" that has thrown me for a loop.

Not to worry, liotta is quick to point out every time I appear to "ride my see-saw." Ooops, there I go again, I'm turning blue.

I also did a double take with that recent post.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interestingly the Dominionists, The New Apostolic Reformation Movement, behind the religious right running for president these days, claim to be apostles and prophets.

So if they can pull of a miracle, like pay off the US debt, then you'd vote for them?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But we're not talking about Jesus. We're talking about those who claim to be apostles today. And it's no skin of my nose if you just take their claims willy-nilly. So have at it. Hook up to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that call themselves apostles. Hook up with the dominionists if you like ... they claim to be apostles....

Wouldn't it be a better test to see if they express Jesus? After all, how do we know that WL was or was not the MOTA? Isn't it because of his sins and behavior that fell short of the glory of God? Trying to use miracles would be extremely impractical

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But we're not talking about Jesus. We're talking about those who claim to be apostles today. And it's no skin of my nose if you just take their claims willy-nilly. So have at it.

But are you not conjuring up bogus tests for the apostles that even Jesus or Paul or Peter could pass?

Who is taking whose claims willy-nilly? Seriously now, many of your posts do border on the outrageous. Are you now speaking "rhetoric hyperbole" as Igzy has claimed? Call me back when you guys stop playing games. If only awareness proposed those "crazy cemetery tests," I would guess it was just "rhetoric hyperbole," but when Igzy jumped in too, I figured you guys weren't clowning around.

Please do tell me ahead of time when I am supposed to take any of your posts seriously. The other posters need to know too. You both have hundreds of posts. Are they all "rhetoric hyperbole?" Which of your other posts should be ignored due to "rhetoric hyperbole?" Can you place an asterisk after them to code them for the reader? *

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And that's my point. Thank you for spelling it out so succinctly.

Not only would awareness's "test" cause every true apostle to flunk, but even our Heavenly Apostle would flunk that test. While on earth, the Jews attempted to "play" the Lord on numerous occasions, asking for signs and wonders. Even the Roman guards taunted Him saying, "play the prophet." He did nothing to oblige them. He appeared to them as totally incompetent, like some dumb sheep headed for slaughter. He never came to this earth to be a miracle worker.

Our Lord Jesus refused to be the circus performer that you and awareness seem to desire.

When I said "ask them to do a miracle" I was humorously making the point to check on whether the miraculous signs of a apostle have accompanied their ministries.

Obviously, asking them to do a sign on the spot was not my point. You should have realized that. But I guess you figure I'm as dumb as the point you thought I made.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So if they can pull of a miracle, like pay off the US debt, then you'd vote for them?

Or better yet, just create a few private sector jobs!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I said "ask them to do a miracle" I was humorously making the point to check on whether the miraculous signs of a apostle have accompanied their ministries.

Obviously, asking them to do a sign on the spot was not my point. You should have realized that. But I guess you figure I'm as dumb as the point you thought I made.

Or perhaps I was just dumb enough to think you were serious about discussing the apostles. My bad. My dumb.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Or perhaps I was just dumb enough to think you were serious about discussing the apostles. My bad. My dumb.

I was seriously discussing them. Are you saying someone can't use humor to make a serious point? Even Jesus did that.

Here's the thing. Some things, like modern day people claiming to be apostles, deserve some derision. That calls for humor.

But I shouldn't have to explain that, either.

[Cal]

Let me make the point more clearly. If someone claims to be an apostle, ask him to tell you his track record of signs and miracles. Both Jesus and Paul did this (Luke 7:22-23; 2 Cor 12:12). If he can't produce one, say thank you very much but I'm not convinced you are what you claim to be.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me make the point more clearly. If someone claims to be an apostle, ask him to tell you his track record of signs and miracles. Both Jesus and Paul did this (Luke 7:22-23; 2 Cor 12:12). If he can't produce one, say thank you very much but I'm not convinced you are what you claim to be.

Ohio, if you found my characterizations of your argument as "extremely degrading", I apologize. I didn't think the argument was very strong; forgive me if I was unduly dismissive of it, and you.

I agree with Igzy; you have Peter speaking in Acts chapter 2,verse 22“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

You have Paul's "marks of an apostle" in 2 Corinthians 12.

You have Hebrews chapter 2:4 saying that the eyewitnesses of Jesus also were accompanied by signs, wonders and miracles.

Then suddenly from one verse, 2 Timothy 4:20, we have the end of works of power? Just like that? Somehow God just turned off the spigot and we found ourselves with apostles, but minus works? I do not think so.

I was poking fun; I was trying to include all of us. I think we all set up arguments in our minds of what makes sense, of "the way things are", and then we cut and paste the incoming data (like the Bible) to fit our concepts. I tried to be clear that we all do this. I apologize if in including you & ZNP (because I include everyone) in such a characterization it seems insulting or demeaning.

But Peter and the author of Hebrews and Paul all said that God's demonstration of works of power was worth our consideration. To just dismiss all that evidence without some basis beyond 2 Tim 4:20 seems rather presumptive.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me make the point more clearly. If someone claims to be an apostle, ask him to tell you his track record of signs and miracles. Both Jesus and Paul did this (Luke 7:22-23; 2 Cor 12:12). If he can't produce one, say thank you very much but I'm not convinced you are what you claim to be.

Better yet doubt them right off the bat. I don't even know if I'd trust their signs ans miracles. I'd call Jame Randi on them to prove their signs and miracles isn't some kind of stage magic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me make the point more clearly. If someone claims to be an apostle, ask him to tell you his track record of signs and miracles. Both Jesus and Paul did this (Luke 7:22-23; 2 Cor 12:12).

I agree with this. The verses alone are compelling. To discount the apostleship of all, except for the original "13," is a convenient sell. Most protestant evangelicals have taken this stance, as you have so well noted in a prior post.

If he can't produce one, say thank you very much but I'm not convinced you are what you claim to be.

This presents a problem to me, and try to hear me out since I am no longer speaking in context of the LC. Many contemporaries have made these claims and others truly believe them. If it is just about so-called signs and wonders and healings, then numerous apostles exist today. Some even claim to be apostles. I'm not sure of their criteria, but they make the claim nevertheless.

Today some stats list Pentecostals as roughly 50% of genuine evangelical Christians. To deny all modern day miracles and healings is to deny the Spirit Himself. But ... it is also undeniable that many Pentecostals want there to be more miracles than there really are. Some Pentecostal ministers love to sensationalize every healing and "almost" healing for personal gain. It is a "culture" that few within the movement can see through. To attempt to openly "examine" some ministers' claims is met with rejection, and accusations of faithlessness. The loyal supporters view such "examination" as persecution.

I spent some time with a precious older couple nearby me. They are convinced that Todd Bentley's Lakeland movement was genuinely of the Lord. Perhaps that's just what they want to believe, but there's no dissuading them. If it were just lifelong Pentecostals that clung to this, I might not be concerned, but since the demise of the GLA LC's, many former members have been enamored by "what they have been missing" all these years.

This is why I reject flippant comments. I need to equip myself with better information. Too bad the "tests" used by Ephesus were not recorded. Paul's tests in 2 Cor 12.12 may be duplicated by some, at least their supporters claim to have "proof." WL himself also testified of visions and works of power. All of them will testify of exceeding trials and tribulations which have wrought a proven ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

I apologize if in including you & ZNP (because I include everyone) in such a characterization it seems insulting or demeaning.

Did I miss something? Why am I being included in this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did I miss something? Why am I being included in this?

He's apologizing. Just accept it. Things like this don't happen every day.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree with this. The verses alone are compelling. To discount the apostleship of all, except for the original "13," is a convenient sell. Most protestant evangelicals have taken this stance, as you have so well noted in a prior post.

The discounting is not without basis. It's a compelling biblical argument as far as I can see.

Note discount doesn't mean deny. It just means the extent of the apostleship is more modest.

This presents a problem to me, and try to hear me out since I am no longer speaking in context of the LC. Many contemporaries have made these claims and others truly believe them. If it is just about so-called signs and wonders and healings, then numerous apostles exist today. Some even claim to be apostles. I'm not sure of their criteria, but they make the claim nevertheless.

Today some stats list Pentecostals as roughly 50% of genuine evangelical Christians. To deny all modern day miracles and healings is to deny the Spirit Himself. But ... it is also undeniable that many Pentecostals want there to be more miracles than there really are. Some Pentecostal ministers love to sensationalize every healing and "almost" healing for personal gain. It is a "culture" that few within the movement can see through. To attempt to openly "examine" some ministers' claims is met with rejection, and accusations of faithlessness. The loyal supporters view such "examination" as persecution.

I spent some time with a precious older couple nearby me. They are convinced that Todd Bentley's Lakeland movement was genuinely of the Lord. Perhaps that's just what they want to believe, but there's no dissuading them. If it were just lifelong Pentecostals that clung to this, I might not be concerned, but since the demise of the GLA LC's, many former members have been enamored by "what they have been missing" all these years.

This is why I reject flippant comments. I need to equip myself with better information. Too bad the "tests" used by Ephesus were not recorded. Paul's tests in 2 Cor 12.12 may be duplicated by some, at least their supporters claim to have "proof." WL himself also testified of visions and works of power. All of them will testify of exceeding trials and tribulations which have wrought a proven ministry.

My point was that if you ask for a record of signs and wonders that eliminates the bulk of the field right off the bat. There is other criteria as well that can be applied to the remainder.

I really don't understand what belief you are actually advocating. Are you saying we should leave the door open for some apostle with the authority of Peter or Paul's stature to come along, just in case he does? Or are you just saying it should be okay to call someone an apostle today? Or are you saying anyone with an apostolic-like gift should call himself an apostle and we should too, and we're not being biblical if we don't? What exactly would you like people to believe?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The discounting is not without basis. It's a compelling biblical argument as far as I can see.

My point was that if you ask for a record of signs and wonders that eliminates the bulk of the field right off the bat. There is other criteria as well that can be applied to the remainder.

I really don't understand what belief you are actually advocating. Are you saying we should leave the door open for some apostle with the authority of Peter or Paul's stature to come along, just in case he does? Or are you just saying it should be okay to call someone an apostle today? Or are you saying anyone with an apostolic-like gift should call himself an apostle and is not being biblical if he doesn't? What exactly would you like people to believe?

I think this is a very poor approach. I don't disagree that the signs of an apostle would include miracles. I also don't disagree with Awareness that anyone who puts his signs and miracles on his resume is probably a fraud. I have experienced miracles, they are very private, and they are not something you want to go public with. I think that the miracles that Jesus did were almost always intended to be somewhat private. The reason is simple, if you turn it into a circus you bring in a very ugly spirit. "Seeing" some miracle done on stage does absolutely nothing for me and never impresses me that this person is anything more than a fraud. But when you experience a miracle first hand, that is different. You know it was an answered prayer.

Obviously, this discussion is really about frauds and liars. Those that pretend to be apostles, but aren't. I think if someone is a fraud or a liar, it will be easy to prove and realize for anyone who genuinely wants to know the truth. Frauds and liars appeal to greed and lust. Look at the fruit of the ministry, are they causing people to walk in the way of the Lord or are they tickling their ears and encouraging greed and lust?

[Cal]

The discussion isn't just about liars and frauds. The discussion is more generally about people who claim apostleship but don't really have it. These people aren't necessarily frauds, they could just be self-deceived. Like Herbert Armstrong, for example. They are more trouble than flat-out frauds because they seem to be doing so many good things.

As for your claim of a poor approach, if Paul said signs and wonders were the sign of apostleship, just how does one validate apostleship, without having some proof of signs and wonders? I'm not suggesting the "apostle" has to pull a rabbit out of his hat every time someone wants proof. But there should be some verifiable, reliable testimony and witness record of his gifting. This is what Jesus and the apostles established by various and multiple witnesses to signs.

[Cal]

The changing of water into wine at a wedding, the feeding of thousands were all very public miracles which were meant to testify that Jesus was God's Annointed. Nothing private about them. They were meant to be seen by many and broadcast to many. Also, the resurrection. Hundreds saw him.

There are miracles which are just miracles, and miracles which are meant to be public signs. We are talking about the latter.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The changing of water into wine at a wedding, the feeding of thousands were all very public miracles which were meant to testify that Jesus was God's Annointed. Nothing private about them. They were meant to be seen by many and broadcast to many. Also, the resurrection. Hundreds saw him.

There are miracles which are just miracles, and miracles which are meant to be public signs. We are talking about the latter.

Interesting. See, to me the changing of the water into wine was a miracle to those that carried the water to the governor of the feast, and to those who knew they were out of wine. But to everyone else I would have just kept silent. I wouldn't even have told the governor of the feast where the wine came from. I mean, if that was my wedding, am I going to stand up and announce "Sorry everyone, we are out of wine"? Jesus mother found out, and she in turn told Jesus, but to my impression she was still trying to keep this on the down low.

Likewise, feeding the 5,000. I am sure that to the disciples charged with feeding them, they were well aware that a miracle took place, but I don't understand what everyone else understood. If I had been there I certainly wouldn't have announced that "hey, last night it was a miracle that we were able to feed you".

These are two good examples of miracles to me. Yes, they are very public, they are very real, but unless you are actively concerned with feeding the 5,000 or of serving wine to the guests it is easy to be clueless about what is going on.

[Cal]

You don't think the people asked where the best wine came from? You don't think the people asked where all that food came from? Did the people asked cover it up?

Jesus obviously didn't want sensationalism, but he did want witnesses to his miracles. Otherwise, he wouldn't have called attention to them at all, as he did with John's disciples. Neither would have Paul called attention to his. And they never would have been recorded in the Bible.

I really don't understand what this line of theorizing is about. Are you trying to say that Jesus' and Paul's miracles were not meant to attest to their anointing? If not that, what's your point?

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did I miss something? Why am I being included in this?

Because when Ohio said the post was "extremely degrading" and "threw him for a loop" you said (Post #170) that you also did a double take on that post.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You don't think the people asked where the best wine came from? You don't think the people asked where all that food came from? Did the people asked cover it up?

Jesus obviously didn't want sensationalism, but he did want witnesses to his miracles. Otherwise, he wouldn't have called attention to them at all, as he did with John's disciples, and they never would have been recorded in the Bible,

Please, let me savor this moment. Please tell me that OBW is reading this! You sound like me and my teaching on Jesse's teaching

I am just speaking from my own personal experience. It seems more accurate to look at those cases that happened to me than it is to talk about what people perceived 2,000 years ago. Without any doubt people spread the word that Jesus was a miracle man, He had trouble going into cities, and people heard of His fame. Other than that I have a sense that the turning of water to wine was done discreetly. As for the feeding of thousands, I find those accounts harder to discern. Were the crowds following Jesus because they were fed in the same way that people vote for a politician who promises them jobs? Or were they following Him because they saw the miracle of the feeding and realized He was an Apostle from God? It seems that the Lord's attitude concerning them was that their following him was not a matter of faith but of the flesh.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Please, let me savor this moment. Please tell me that OBW is reading this! You sound like me and my teaching on Jesse's teaching

I am just speaking from my own personal experience. It seems more accurate to look at those cases that happened to me than it is to talk about what people perceived 2,000 years ago. Without any doubt people spread the word that Jesus was a miracle man, He had trouble going into cities, and people heard of His fame. Other than that I have a sense that the turning of water to wine was done discreetly. As for the feeding of thousands, I find those accounts harder to discern. Were the crowds following Jesus because they were fed in the same way that people vote for a politician who promises them jobs? Or were they following Him because they saw the miracle of the feeding and realized He was an Apostle from God? It seems that the Lord's attitude concerning them was that their following him was not a matter of faith but of the flesh.

Then why did Jesus work miracles?

Don't confuse following Jesus because he could work a miracle for you with following Jesus because he could work miracles. The former means you could get an outward benefit, the latter means he was someone really special.

I fully believe he worked miracles in part so they would realize the latter.

[Cal]

Jesus either worked miracles to help people or to show he was capable working them, or both. I fully believe Jesus cared about people. But if he only cared about people he could have worked miracles secretly and/or from a distance. He didn't have to let on that he was involved at all. But he worked miracles in a way that there was no doubt that he was the one doing them. He clearly wanted to express and testify of both his care and his power.

Jesus didn't have to work miracles at all. He could have just preached the kingdom and let his character do all the testifying for him. But it strongly appears God felt there needed to be an unavoidable testimony that he was more than just a man. Thus the miracles. So they most likely were performed not just to show care, but to testify of who Jesus was.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point was that if you ask for a record of signs and wonders that eliminates the bulk of the field right off the bat. There is other criteria as well that can be applied to the remainder.

I really don't understand what belief you are actually advocating. Are you saying we should leave the door open for some apostle with the authority of Peter or Paul's stature to come along, just in case he does? Or are you just saying it should be okay to call someone an apostle today? Or are you saying anyone with an apostolic-like gift should call himself an apostle and we should too, and we're not being biblical if we don't? What exactly would you like people to believe?

I am looking for answers myself. It sounds easy to "ask for a record of signs and wonders," but these are not the kinds of things the true apostles boast in. These wonders are marks upon their life and work. I do believe that, in today's environment, if a brother really is an apostle, with accompanying signs, he would do his best to keep it quiet. The Lord attempted to do this.

When I am with brothers of the pentecostal persuasion, I would like to prepare myself to address these topics, should the need arise. A month ago, things were said, and I was not able to speak up and address some of these issues. You seem to be one who has never confronted this type of controversy, so you are able to maintain neat little packaged doctrines in your portfolio. I have found the greater body of Christ to be pretty complicated, and venturing out into uncharted waters brings a whole host of surprises and challenges to what I thought I understood so clearly.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Jesus didn't have to work miracles at all. He could have just preached the kingdom and let his character do all the testifying for him. But it strongly appears God felt there needed to be an unavoidable testimony that he was more than just a man. Thus the miracles. So they most likely were performed not just to show care, but to testify of who Jesus was.

Acts 17:31 says, "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him [Jesus] from the dead."

God proved his desgination of Jesus as Lord and Christ by raising Him from the dead. In His life, God also proved/confirmed Jesus by the mighty works which He did through Him(Luke 7:22,23). Likewise, Hebrews 2:4 says "those who heard Him" were also confirmed/proved/affirmed by works of power. Paul said (2 Cor 12:12) the marks of an apostle are evident in signs and wonders and miracles.

Now, 2,000 years have passed. We have the "clear word". My sense is that the need for confirming signs has passed. I was asking for signs and miracles and wonders semi-facetiously, because I think the need for apostles is also past. We have the Bible; we also have the fellowship of the believers, to sort our way, collectively as God's flock, to see God's revealed will in His word.

So when someone comes along and says how Ephesians 4 or some other scripture shows the continual necessity of apostles, my reply is, doesn't the same scripture show the confirming works of the apostles? Why keep one and toss the other? 2 Timothy 4:20b does not clearly demonstrate the turning of an age.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am looking for answers myself. It sounds easy to "ask for a record of signs and wonders," but these are not the kinds of things the true apostles boast in. These wonders are marks upon their life and work. I do believe that, in today's environment, if a brother really is an apostle, with accompanying signs, he would do his best to keep it quiet. The Lord attempted to do this.

If the Lord had wanted to keep his miracles completely quiet he never would have performed them in any way that could be connected to him. And he didn't ask everyone not to tell about them. Sometimes he did, and sometimes he didn't.

But concealing some miracle wasn't just about not being boastful. Otherwise, Paul would not have written 2 Cor 12:12, and Jesus would have never said the words in Luke 7:22. Clearly signs are intended to attest that God is with someone in an extraordinary way.

When I am with brothers of the pentecostal persuasion, I would like to prepare myself to address these topics, should the need arise. A month ago, things were said, and I was not able to speak up and address some of these issues. You seem to be one who has never confronted this type of controversy, so you are able to maintain neat little packaged doctrines in your portfolio. I have found the greater body of Christ to be pretty complicated, and venturing out into uncharted waters brings a whole host of surprises and challenges to what I thought I understood so clearly.

What type of controversy specifically? The claim that someone is an apostle? I surely have had to confront that. That miracles have been done? I believe in miracles. I've seen them happen.

But we are talking about a different class of thing I believe. We're talking about something that can be classified as a "sign and wonder." We're talking about major illnesses being healed on the spot and other things which can only be explained by the supernatural.

You probably heard of the fires in the Austin area. One occurred near where we live, actually in a neighborhood we used to live in. They evacuated the area and some friends whose house was very near the fire and in danger stayed with us for two nights. Anyway, some other friends also close to the fire evacuated and they and others prayed fervently for the house of another friend which was on a cul-de-sac which was burned. The house was spared, even though the houses on either side of it burned. See picture here. The spared house is in the bottom center of the picture.

Was that a miracle? I'd be a cynic not to think so. But I don't think it qualifies as a sign and wonder as Paul was talking about. I think he was talking about something much more dramatic. People being healed on the spot and raised from the dead and that sort of thing. My point is that kind of miracle is relatively rare in relation to all the other more subtle things God does miraculously. Many miracles can on reflection be "explained" by natural causes. I don't think it's possible to explain by natural causes raising the dead, restoring a hand or ear, walking on water, silencing a storm, causing fearsome waves to instantly turn into a calm sea, or being transfigured into a heavenly being.

[ZNPaaneah]

2Cor 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

To me, verse 12 is saying that the sings and wonders and mighty deeds were wrought among the saints in Corinth. This was their personal experience. Verse 11 seems to me to be saying that Paul did not want to mention or refer to this, he felt that it was the Corinthians that should have "commended" him. And, I think this word commended does not necessarily infer a reference to the miracles. No doubt, someone's testimony might include this, so you can take that either way.

So yes, I agree with the idea that any true apostle will also have the accompanying signs and wonders. However, I don't agree that it is the Apostle who publishes, promotes or publicizes this. Also, I don't think that it is always profitable to discuss miracles you have experienced with those that haven't. Rather, I think that when you have a genuine experience it confirms the fact that this person is a coworker with God. You would / should then be more assured to commend this one's ministry to others, though you might feel it is best to not mention the signs and wonders.

Finally, this is really up to God. Surely we are all still "coworkers with God". We do our part, He does ours. How could someone in this ministry not come across those who are dead and dying. No doubt you pray and if the Lord chooses to raise the dead, that is His option. But remember, the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Acts 17:31 says, "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him [Jesus] from the dead."

God proved his designation of Jesus as Lord and Christ by raising Him from the dead. In His life, God also proved/confirmed Jesus by the mighty works which He did through Him(Luke 7:22,23). Likewise, Hebrews 2:4 says "those who heard Him" were also confirmed/proved/affirmed by works of power. Paul said (2 Cor 12:12) the marks of an apostle are evident in signs and wonders and miracles.

Now, 2,000 years have passed. We have the "clear word". My sense is that the need for confirming signs has passed. I was asking for signs and miracles and wonders semi-facetiously, because I think the need for apostles is also past. We have the Bible; we also have the fellowship of the believers, to sort our way, collectively as God's flock, to see God's revealed will in His word.

Abraham told the rich man in Luke 16 that, "they have Moses and the prophets,let them hear them," when the rich man begged for someone to "rise from the dead." Abraham felt that people already had enough "proof." Yet God went further to "prove his designation," by many signs and wonders testifying who Jesus was. God then went further to raise Him from the dead. Nor God didn't stop there. He wrought many works of power through the Apostles. Their teachings have also been added to scripture.

Church history is filled with many more works of power, and while their writings have not been added to scripture, they have added to a tremendous resource of biographies, histories, commentaries, tracts, etc. The Head of the body has been giving "gifts" to man for 2,000 years. He has never stopped. Church history also records that many "confirming signs" have accompanied the gospel pioneers to new lands. The Bible tells us that the only hindrance to "confirming signs" is unbelief. For example, the city of Nazareth witnessed no "confirming signs" because of their unbelief.

So when someone comes along and says how Ephesians 4 or some other scripture shows the continual necessity of apostles, my reply is, doesn't the same scripture show the confirming works of the apostles? Why keep one and toss the other? 2 Timothy 4:20b does not clearly demonstrate the turning of an age.

I guess this someone refers to me. But ... I used Ephesians 4 to say that the Head never stopped giving "gifts" to men. Whether the body requires the continual necessity of apostles is not my responsibility, it is His. He has never told us that we don't need them.

Nor did I use 2 Tim 4:20b to say there was a turning of an age. It was cited to address the circus-carnival-wonder-working-demonstrations-of-power that were being demanded of the apostles for verification. If Paul to be such a on-demand-faith-healer, why would he leave a brother sick somewhere? For that matter, why would anyone ever be sick around the early Apostles? Why didn't Paul just send him a clean hanky?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God felt there needed to be an unavoidable testimony that he was more than just a man. The miracles... were performed ...to testify of who Jesus was.

A la Peter in Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know"

In contrast, thus far I have seen people like Todd Bentley who don't impress me, to say the least. There is power there, but I am not convinced it is of God. Swapping his wife for a newer model seems to be a confirmation of other forces at work.

Then I have seen over-reaching Bible teachers like Lee who somehow need to be "apostles" to maintain sway over the flock. Not impressed at all.

Not to mention all the false apostles and prophets and christs out there. Practically too numerous to name.

But, I have indeed seen power exhibited, and occasionally felt it myself. God has, thus, proven, or confirmed, or attested, His Son Jesus to us, again and again and again. Some of these manifestations may indeed have been through apostles. I am not going to name names, because I don't want to mar the point (okay, one: Billy Graham. I saw Graham deal with a very determined and intelligent and well-prepared opposer in a hostile setting, and Graham had the man purring like a kitty-cat in about 2 minutes. The hair stood right up on my arms).

But my witness to power does not confirm some need to have a delineated set of roles a la Ephesians 4:11 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers," or 1 Corinthians 12:28 "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."

The idea that formal, clearly delineated and universally-recognized positions are continually supported by these verses, to me, is to put God in a box. Watchman Nee's box labeled "The Normal Christian Church" is still a box.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Finally, this is really up to God. ...we are all still "coworkers with God". We do our part, He does ours. How could someone in this ministry not come across those who are dead and dying. ...you pray and if the Lord chooses to raise the dead, that is His option. But remember, the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Amen; we are one. Probably much more than we realize. My sense of it increases all the time. Surely the Lord's return draws nigh.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But we are talking about a different class of thing I believe. We're talking about something that can be classified as a "sign and wonder." We're talking about major illnesses being healed on the spot and other things which can only be explained by the supernatural.

You probably heard of the fires in the Austin area. One occurred near where we live, actually in a neighborhood we used to live in. They evacuated the area and some friends whose house was very near the fire and in danger stayed with us for two nights. Anyway, some other friends also close to the fire evacuated and they and others prayed fervently for the house of another friend which was on a cul-de-sac which was burned. The house was spared, even though the houses on either side of it burned. See picture here. The spared house is in the bottom center of the picture.

That link needs a login. But glad to hear about your freind.

I'm not so sure the apostolic "signs and wonders" were as dramatic as you think. Nothing he did was as dramatic as Elijah calling down fire surrounded by the worshipers of Baal. Not everybody dies from snake bites. The Pharisees found ways to discredit the Lord's miracles, and so did the Judaizers with Paul's.

This is why the resurrection of Jesus was so orchestrated by the Father. It was a public execution by the ruling empire. The cross was guarded by Roman soldiers as was the grave site. There was darkness and earthquakes. Jesus was witnessed alive by hundreds. He still had holes in His hands and feet! His resurrection was absolutely indisputable, yet still the Pharisees tried to discredit it.

Anyways, this seems to be a dead topic. Every one has made their points, and are now repeating them, trying to score extra points.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Abraham told the rich man in Luke 16 that, "they have Moses and the prophets,let them hear them," when the rich man begged for someone to "rise from the dead." Abraham felt that people already had enough "proof." Yet God went further to "prove his designation," by many signs and wonders testifying who Jesus was. God then went further to raise Him from the dead. Nor God didn't stop there. He wrought many works of power through the Apostles. Their teachings have also been added to scripture.

Church history is filled with many more works of power ... The Head of the body has been giving "gifts" to man for 2,000 years. He has never stopped. Church history also records that many "confirming signs" have accompanied the gospel pioneers to new lands. The Bible tells us that the only hindrance to "confirming signs" is unbelief. For example, the city of Nazareth witnessed no "confirming signs" because of their unbelief.?

Good words, all.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I used Ephesians 4 to say that the Head never stopped giving "gifts" to men. Whether the body requires the continual necessity of apostles is not my responsibility, it is His. He has never told us that we don't need them.

I may have mischaracterized your argument to make mine. I believe I've done that once or twice before.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nor did I use 2 Tim 4:20b to say there was a turning of an age. It was cited to address the circus-carnival-wonder-working-demonstrations-of-power that were being demanded of the apostles for verification. If Paul to be such a on-demand-faith-healer, why would he leave a brother sick somewhere? For that matter, why would anyone ever be sick around the early Apostles? Why didn't Paul just send him a clean hanky?

Interesting questions. I have my own theories. I think the organization of the "church" co-opted the Spirit. Instead of feeding the thousands, they organized deacons.

Now, having said that, I immediately place myself waaaaaay at the bottom. Whatever "works of power" were evinced in the scripture, and in the record of history, I should tremble even to tap at a keyboard, if my "works" were to be set up next and compared. So I certainly don't write as "one who has laid hold".

But I am indignant when I see people set themselves up as something, when they clearly are not validated by God, to draw away the foolish and the simple (nor, conversely, do I yearn for the circus-like "power... and authority ... and signs" seen in Revelation 13 by the false prophet and the beast).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

... this seems to be a dead topic. Every one has made their points, and are now repeating them, trying to score extra points.

Noooo! I have not yet vanquished all!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting questions. I have my own theories. I think the organization of the "church" co-opted the Spirit. Instead of feeding the thousands, they organized deacons.

But I am indignant when I see people set themselves up as something, when they clearly are not validated by God, to draw away the foolish and the simple (nor, conversely, do I yearn for the circus-like "power... and authority ... and signs" seen in Revelation 13 by the false prophet and the beast).

Not quite sure about your theory, since the initial deacons' first responsibility was to "feed thousands," or maybe just a few Greek widows.

I share the same indignation, and that's why I seem to have objections to only using "signs and wonders" to confirm apostles. The Bible does it, so I have little choice, but it's not without a few reservations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To me, verse 12 is saying that the signs and wonders and mighty deeds were wrought among the saints in Corinth. This was their personal experience. Verse 11 seems to me to be saying that Paul did not want to mention or refer to this, he felt that it was the Corinthians that should have "commended" him. And, I think this word commended does not necessarily infer a reference to the miracles. No doubt, someone's testimony might include this, so you can take that either way.

So yes, I agree with the idea that any true apostle will also have the accompanying signs and wonders. However, I don't agree that it is the Apostle who publishes, promotes or publicizes this. Also, I don't think that it is always profitable to discuss miracles you have experienced with those that haven't. Rather, I think that when you have a genuine experience it confirms the fact that this person is a coworker with God. You would / should then be more assured to commend this one's ministry to others, though you might feel it is best to not mention the signs and wonders.

Finally, this is really up to God. Surely we are all still "coworkers with God". We do our part, He does ours. How could someone in this ministry not come across those who are dead and dying. No doubt you pray and if the Lord chooses to raise the dead, that is His option. But remember, the prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

These are all great points hitherto unmentioned.

[Cal]

Lots of good points made in this thread. I've learned some things and my views have been sharpened.

Here the picture of the spared house.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

A la Peter in Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know"

In contrast, thus far I have seen people like Todd Bentley who don't impress me, to say the least. There is power there, but I am not convinced it is of God. Swapping his wife for a newer model seems to be a confirmation of other forces at work.

Then I have seen over-reaching Bible teachers like Lee who somehow need to be "apostles" to maintain sway over the flock. Not impressed at all.

Not to mention all the false apostles and prophets and christs out there. Practically too numerous to name.

But, I have indeed seen power exhibited, and occasionally felt it myself. God has, thus, proven, or confirmed, or attested, His Son Jesus to us, again and again and again. Some of these manifestations may indeed have been through apostles. I am not going to name names, because I don't want to mar the point (okay, one: Billy Graham. I saw Graham deal with a very determined and intelligent and well-prepared opposer in a hostile setting, and Graham had the man purring like a kitty-cat in about 2 minutes. The hair stood right up on my arms).

But my witness to power does not confirm some need to have a delineated set of roles a la Ephesians 4:11 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers," or 1 Corinthians 12:28 "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."

The idea that formal, clearly delineated and universally-recognized positions are continually supported by these verses, to me, is to put God in a box. Watchman Nee's box labeled "The Normal Christian Church" is still a box.

Great post, aron. I agree with this one and your one before.

[Cal]

If signs and wonders are indeed meant to attest to apostleship, then there needs to be some way of knowing the alleged apostles have done them. The issue of boasting or being modest is really a side issue. Making modesty the main point would be like a policeman not wearing his uniform because he didn't want people to think he boasted about being a policeman. That's very noble, but how are people to be know he's really a policeman?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If signs and wonders are indeed meant to attest to apostleship, then there needs to be some way of knowing the alleged apostles have done them. The issue of boasting or being modest is really a side issue. Making modesty the main point would be like a policeman not wearing his uniform because he didn't want people to think he boasted about being a policeman. That's very noble, but how are people to be know he's really a policeman?

You are saying that miracles are like a uniform that a policeman wears so that everyone can see he is a policeman.

That is not my experience at all.

Perhaps in my experience miracles are the Policeman's gun that shoots the bad guy right before he kills you. Or it might be the hypodermic needle the doctor uses to save the dying man. Do we really want to determine who the real police are by the way they shoot guns? Or who the real doctors are by the drugs they inject into people?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are saying that miracles are like a uniform that a policeman wears so that everyone can see he is a policeman.

That is not my experience at all.

Really? What experience have you had of apostles? Recall we are talking about apostles, not miracles in general.

Perhaps in my experience miracles are the Policeman's gun that shoots the bad guy right before he kills you. Or it might be the hypodermic needle the doctor uses to save the dying man. Do we really want to determine who the real police are by the way they shoot guns? Or who the real doctors are by the drugs they inject into people?

I think you are totally missing my point.

I simply said, if signs are a required indication of apostles then by definition we need to have some way of knowing about an alleged apostles signs.

Why is that statement so hard to follow?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Really? What experience have you had of apostles? Recall we are talking about apostles, not miracles in general.



I think you are totally missing my point.

I simply said, if signs are a required indication of apostles then by definition we need to have some way of knowing about an alleged apostles signs.

Why is that statement so hard to follow?

No, my post was referring to your analogy of miracles being a uniform, and in my experience miracles are not at all like a uniform.

1. "Signs are a required indication of an apostle." [I can accept that, even I can say Amen to that. I would say that a true Apostle is a coworker of God, and at some point that should be made clear through a sign or a miracle].

2. "Then by definition we need to have some way of knowing about an alleged apostles signs." [I can also agree with this statement once we clarify who the term "we" refers to].

My issue is this. An apostle, if he is a "missionary" will be preaching the gospel to hundreds of people, perhaps thousands. These people may have not had any prior experience of Christians, or else a very limited experience. So this is really something they are brand new to. How does this person learn of the miracles? If you are talking about a coworker, I would expect they would see the miracles take place first hand. For the gospel contacts I also hope it would be first hand experience. It is not something that the servant needs to discuss, your focus should be on ministering and serving. When the Lord chooses He may provide a sign or a miracle.

For example, I read a story about George Mueller. He had said if they ever were unable to feed the kids at the orphanage he would close it down because it was evidence that God was no longer a coworker. One Sunday they came to him, said they didn't have any food, it was in the afternoon, dinner was a few hours away, they had nothing to cook, and the stores were closed. So he gathered all the serving ones together to pray. A few minutes later someone came and said there was a truck outside full of meat. The driver said that he had come to deliver it and the store was closed and the meat would go bad so the people in the town had directed him to the orphanage.

So surely, all the coworkers and serving ones were well aware of God's hand in the ministry. But do you now broadcast this? Do you send out a letter to donors? Mueller refused to do so and waited about 6 months to send out his next letter. His reason was based on a principle, he decided it would be insulting to God to ever send out letters to the supporters when they were low on funds. So, there was no way to "trumpet" this miracle, or "parade around wearing this miracle" without also revealing that they were low on funds. The story showed up in the biography years later, but far too late for anyone to decide they want to contribute to this ministry or participate in it. Let people come to the ministry out of a burden to serve, not out of the hope to see Jesus walk across their swimming pool.

The road that leads to life is a narrow way and few there be that find it. If you put miracles on the servant like a purple robe you make it too easy for the unbelievers and fleshly to find this way. When they were deciding to crucify Jesus they said that there was no prophecy of any prophet coming out of Nazareth. Even these learned Bible scholars were unaware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they were unaware that wise men from the East had come giving him gifts after seeing his star, they were unaware that as a result of this thousands of kids were killed. No doubt these events were part of their relatively recent history, yet Jesus never went around saying that He was that kid. He never told anyone that Herod himself had wanted to kill Jesus as a baby.

This is why I do not like the analogy of a policeman's uniform.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My issue is this. An apostle, if he is a "missionary" will be preaching the gospel to hundreds of people, perhaps thousands. These people may have not had any prior experience of Christians, or else a very limited experience. So this is really something they are brand new to. How does this person learn of the miracles?

Right, but if he's preaching the gospel he's acting as an evangelist, not an apostle, so miracles are not required.

An apostle (in the context of our discussion) is one who has special authority to dictate truth to multiple churches, to directly lead multiple churches, to administer discipline to multiple churches, to appoint elders in multiple churches, and so forth. This is the kind of apostle Paul was, and the kind WL was purported to be.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right, but if he's preaching the gospel he's acting as an evangelist, not an apostle, so miracles are not required.

An apostle (in the context of our discussion) is one who has special authority to dictate truth to multiple churches, to directly lead multiple churches, to administer discipline to multiple churches, to appoint elders in multiple churches, and so forth. This is the kind of apostle Paul was, and the kind WL was purported to be.

And pretty much the kind Hudson Taylor was, or William Carey was.

Again, I did not use the term "evangelist" though you would expect a missionary to evangelize (as Paul also did). Rather I used the term Missionary because we had earlier agreed in this thread that Christianity has shy'ed away from the term Apostle and instead substituted the word missionary.

(Also, the Bible makes it very clear that miracles are for the unbelieving, so, on the contrary they are very effective in the gospel. I had an evangelist share a story with me. He was in Haiti after the earthquake. There were gangs out to get his team. I think it was because of the way they distributed the food aid, I don't remember that part of the story. Anyway they were on a particular street corner preaching the gospel but regardless of how hard the gangs tried, they couldn't find them, even though people were telling them which street corner they were on. They said that when they got to the street corner they became "blind". This apparently was the testimony of the men in this gang.)

And this story illustrates to me, why miracles are a very poor substitute for the truth of the gospel. If you believe this brother's account, and I do, then it is a testimony of how God can be with us. But, if you don't believe it, what is the point, there is no way to prove it. However, the story was told as an explanation for why the crowds were suddenly coming to hear him preach. The local people had expected the gangs to come and stayed away, when they learned that they were unable to "find" him because they were going blind, then they came out in force. This is what a true miracle is supposed to be, it is God acting as a coworker. His miracle filled the hall so that now they could hear you preach the truth of the gospel.

[Cal]

If someone is too fastidious to produce his track record of signs and wonders then he ought to be too fastidious to accept the label of apostle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If some is too fastidious to produce his track record of signs and wonders then he ought to be too fastidious to accept the label of apostle.

Who cares about the label. Is that what this discussion is about? I thought the question was whether or not apostles exist today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

In contrast, thus far I have seen people like Todd Bentley who don't impress me, to say the least. There is power there, but I am not convinced it is of God. Swapping his wife for a newer model seems to be a confirmation of other forces at work.

Recently an older couple told me of the Lakeland blessing with all the wonders and healings. He said, "people were getting out of their wheel chairs and walking ... perhaps a little wobbly at first." He said this as evidence of the Spirit's move there.

Granted I am a "recovering" skeptic who does believe the Lord can heal any man, but perhaps those folks were "wobbly" before they got the wheel chair. Perhaps their "healing" was only wishful thinking. For sure Bentley's assistants claimed a "healing" without verification.

Todd Bentley, at least for me, is one such case where signs and wonders appear to prove his "anointing." Verification is very difficult. Even aron says "there is power there." How can one have signs and wonders, yet be filled with unrighteousness. How can the Lord use a man who dumps his wife for an intern. This is why signs and wonders cannot be the only test for apostleship.

Reminds me of Benny Hinn and Paula White strolling arm-in-arm in Rome "comforting one another." First adultery, then lies to cover it up, yet both of them still have the "power" of the Holy Ghost. Paula recently preached to other leaders ...

"The enemy strategically plotted against you, hunted you like prey, set out to destroy you, tried to wreck your mind, destroy your heart, jack up your family, take your ministry, ruin your reputation ... and he thought that he had you. He set you up and thought this is what will kill them.

"I came to put every devil on notice ... I'm getting my dream back, I'm getting my prophesy back, I'm getting my vision back, I'm getting my anointing back, I'm getting my strength back."

Before walking back through her tumultuous past few years, she told them, "I think it's time we stop being hypocrites in the pulpit. I think ... it's time that we take the mask off to this generation and show them that we have the same issues and the same struggles."

"We're going public with all our stuff. Somebody's got to get real in the church now."

Sounds to me like the nasty "side-effects" of her conscience are wearing off.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The road that leads to life is a narrow way and few there be that find it. If you put miracles on the servant like a purple robe you make it too easy for the unbelievers and fleshly to find this way. When they were deciding to crucify Jesus they said that there was no prophecy of any prophet coming out of Nazareth. Even these learned Bible scholars were unaware that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they were unaware that wise men from the East had come giving him gifts after seeing his star, they were unaware that as a result of this thousands of kids were killed. No doubt these events were part of their relatively recent history, yet Jesus never went around saying that He was that kid. He never told anyone that Herod himself had wanted to kill Jesus as a baby.

Good points. This is why I find it is almost impossible to use signs and wonders as the standard. The real ones won't advertize their works, and the false ones will.

[rayliotta]

If I could pipe in here, I get the feeling that what everyone really wants to be able to say is, something like this, Anybody who claims to be "an apostle", surely is not, because a real apostle would never make such a claim about himself.

But, of course, we're kind of stopped in our tracks. Simply because the most famous apostle of them all did boldly, and with certainty, do just that -- he openly declared himself as an apostle.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

If I could pipe in here, I get the feeling that what everyone really wants to be able to say is, something like this, Anybody who claims to be "an apostle", surely is not, because a real apostle would never make such a claim about himself.

But, of course, we're kind of stopped in our tracks. Simply because the most famous apostle of them all did boldly, and with certainty, do just that -- he openly declared himself as an apostle.

We can't be today like they were back 2000 years ago.

I'm not saying mythologies are dead today, but they certainly don't fill human minds like they did back 2000 years ago.

So apostles today can't be what apostles were back then, in Paul's day. Neither can the "signs wonders and miracles" be the same today.

We moderns don't so easily buy into such things, like people did back 2000 years ago.

If someone goes around today claiming signs wonders and miracles, people like James Randi will be on it like white on rice. Randi has a standing million dollar reward to anyone that can prove paranormal phenomena. He's had it for decades, and has busted and exposed fraud of, Christian faith healers left and right, and many others, that make such claims.

And they didn't have James Randi's back 2000 years ago. Their minds were way more superstitious than our minds today.

Examples :

1) Weather. Back 2000 years ago they thought God controlled the weather, and brought rains, floods, and droughts as punishment or reward.

Outside idiots like Michelle Bachmann, we don't believe God controls the weather. Not directly like they did back then (God controls everything in the end). We now know of weather systems. We can track them around the globe. We understand natural dynamics control the weather, not the hand of God. Today only the ignorant believe God directly controls the weather. And believe me, they were ignorant 2000 years ago. 90% couldn't read or write.

2) Earthquakes. Earthquakes are frightening. And they are powerful. So the natural inclination back 2000 years ago would be that they are caused by God. Only God could move the earth they would of course believe.

But today we don't see earthquakes as directly caused by God. We now have satellites tracking movements of the earth surface in inches, trying to predict and warn of earthquakes. We know that earthquakes are caused by shifting of Plate Tectonics.

And the list could go on and on, including the matter of the flat earth and the earth being the center of the universe.

And so too with the meaning of apostle and signs wonders and miracles. They are not going to mean the same thing today as they meant back 2000 years ago.

Try as we may, to put today's world in the same tapestry as back 2000 years ago, it is impossible. Not going to happen.

Today we will see anyone that claims to be an apostle as a possible cult leader, if not a real one.

Why do you think Lee's Recovery movement has been labelled a cult by so many, especially many ex-members of the LRC, who look upon their days in the local church as being in a cult that they came out of?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Who cares about the label. Is that what this discussion is about? I thought the question was whether or not apostles exist today.

Right. But the corollary to that is, if they exist, how to you know who they are?

Are we just supposed to call people apostles who we think are apostles?

Or are we supposed to call people apostles who say they are apostles?

Another corollary is avoiding the problems of false apostles. If being an apostle is such a fuzzy matter, aren't we opening the door to false apostles and major damage to the Body of Christ?

This thread has made me even more skeptical that there are true apostles today. We can't even agree on what an apostle is. So how are we going to know one when he comes along? This is a practical issue, not a theoretical one.

[Cal]

Harold makes a point I'd like to springboard from. Two-thousand years ago, the church had to deal with false apostles. That was understandable given that things were new and the church was learning as it went.

In this day and age, after 2000 years of learning and experience and theology -- we still can't agree on what an apostle is or who they are. We can agree on what a shepherd is and an evangelist is and a teacher is, but not an apostle.

That to me is amazing, and evidence that we should tread lightly around the designation of apostle. These days the title has far more potential for abuse than benefit. Being the pragmatic person I am, that is reason enough to shy away from using it.

I'm not insisting on this, it's just a suggestion borne of what I've seen and experienced.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. But the corollary to that is, if they exist, how to you know who they are?

Are we just supposed to call people apostles who we think are apostles?

Or are we supposed to call people apostles who say they are apostles?

Another corollary is avoiding the problems of false apostles. If being an apostle is such a fuzzy matter, aren't we opening the door to false apostles and major damage to the Body of Christ?

This thread has made me even more skeptical that there are true apostles today. We can't even agree on what an apostle is. So how are we going to know one when he comes along? This is a practical issue, not a theoretical one.

I think Martin Luther was an apostle. I don't think it was necessary to "call him an apostle" to receive his teaching and to leave the Catholic church.

I think Hudson Taylor was an apostle. I imagine that many of the new converts that received his gospel and began to meet in church congregations had no idea about anything more than the fact that he brought the gospel to them.

Once again, I think the best way to know an apostle is by there fruit. We don't need to know someone is "an evangelist". If they do the work of an evangelist and have the fruit of an evangelist, then does it really matter if we call them an evangelist? Likewise, if you do the work of an apostle and have the fruit of an apostle, does it really matter if you have the title of an apostle?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again, I think the best way to know an apostle is by there fruit. We don't need to know someone is "an evangelist". If they do the work of an evangelist and have the fruit of an evangelist, then does it really matter if we call them an evangelist? Likewise, if you do the work of an apostle and have the fruit of an apostle, does it really matter if you have the title of an apostle?

It seems that only with a few exceptions was it ever necessary to claim the title of apostleship. Paul, of course, was the most obvious. The reason was also obvious. He was commissioned to go to the Gentiles. Jesus was sent to the house of Israel and his struggles, excluding the work of redemption, were enormous just facing the Jewish leaders. Paul took on additional conflicts by taking the gospel to the uncircumcised.

How many of the other apostles killed the Christians, striking fear in their hearts? (Acts 9.13-14) How many of the other apostles saw the heavenly Jesus, went to the third heaven, and to paradise, hearing unspeakable words? (2 Cor 12.1-4) How many of the other apostles were martyred and returned from the dead? (Acts 14.19-20) How many of the other apostles were even called directly by revelation of the ascended Head, while many others were still arguing about who had spent time with the earthly Jesus. (Galatians 1) Many Apostles did great work for the kingdom, but Paul pioneered the gospel outside of Israel. Every Gentile in history is indebted to him.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think Martin Luther was an apostle. I don't think it was necessary to "call him an apostle" to receive his teaching and to leave the Catholic church.
I think Hudson Taylor was an apostle. I imagine that many of the new converts that received his gospel and began to meet in church congregations had no idea about anything more than the fact that he brought the gospel to them.
Once again, I think the best way to know an apostle is by there fruit. We don't need to know someone is "an evangelist". If they do the work of an evangelist and have the fruit of an evangelist, then does it really matter if we call them an evangelist? Likewise, if you do the work of an apostle and have the fruit of an apostle, does it really matter if you have the title of an apostle?

Right. You think. I think. They think. That's no basis upon which to allot someone authority over multiple churches. That my point.

It's enough basis to consider someone's message worthy of consideration. But it's no basis upon which to allot someone the kind of authority bestowed on Witness Lee, or Herbert Armstrong, or anyone like that. The fruit you speak of has made that clear.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. You think. I think. They think. That's no basis upon which to allot someone authority over multiple churches. That my point.

It's enough basis to consider someone's message worthy of consideration. But it's no basis upon which to allot someone the kind of authority bestowed on Witness Lee, or Herbert Armstrong, or anyone like that. The fruit you speak of has made that clear.

You do not allot someone apostolic authority merely because you listen to their message or attend a church that sells their books. If Paul, or Martin Luther, or anyone else is "allotted authority" it comes directly from the Lord, to whom all authority has been given.

I was in the LRC, what authority did I allot to WL? I cannot think of anything.

You say that this is practical discussion, not a theoretical one. Who allots apostolic authority to others? When do they do this? How? Why?

You might think that only selling WL books in the church book room is allotting authority to him. However, that was never my experience. I bought more books that were not written by WL than were (in the church book room, I bought none at Christian bookstores or BN.com, etc. In fact, I may have bought more books that were not published by the LSM at the church bookstore than ones that were. If I recall correctly, I bought a Bible, a Concordance, a word study, and three biographies that were not published by LSM from the Houston Bookroom. I probably bought more than 5 LSM published books from that bookroom as well, but definitely not 5 WL books. Also, I think a few of the WN books I bought were not published by LSM. Based on that I would say I definitely bought more books that were not published by the LSM than were from the Houston bookstore.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

We can't be today like they were back 2000 years ago.
....Try as we may, to put today's world in the same tapestry as back 2000 years ago, it is impossible. Not going to happen.

This is true. "And they held all things in common" in Acts 2:44. Not going to happen today.

Lot of things that were going on in Jerusalem and Judea and Asia Minor in AD 30 - 90 not going to fly today.

But: "Love one another" is still good. "Forgive us Father as we forgive others who offend us" is still good. And so forth.

RayLiotta: Paul we give a pass to because of the weight of history. But if anyone else comes along and says, "Am I not also an apostle?" (1 Cor. 9:1) they are going to have to overcome the lack of 2,000 years of God's affirmation of such.

That includes Hudson Taylor, Martin Luther, Moody, Wesley, Graham, and anyone else you want to name.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

But: "Love one another" is still good. "Forgive us Father as we forgive others who offend us" is still good. And so forth.

All teachings that were around long before Jesus.

[OBW]

Why not just accept the gifts that are given to the church. Don't label them.

If it is a gift, then it is a gift. If it is not, then it is not.

Even Martin Luther. Was he clearly an apostle? Who knows for sure. It depends on your definition. But he was a gift to the church.

And so are the ones who meet you at the door of your assembly, or help you find you way around. Or take time to talk and pray with you. Or teach — whether to adults or to children. Should I go on?

Do we need to define an apostle to get his help? Do we need to define an apostle to see and know charlitans, posers, frauds, or even just the overly ambitious?

Seems that living the Christian life has come to a stop for the purpose of hashing over a potentially theoretical point of theology for a purpose that we aren't even sure is relevant to us to know that well. Well, not to a complete stop. But it has been seriously slowed as we line up angels and get out the metaphorical pin. I have an opinion. And I stated part of it days ago. But it really isn't that important.

We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You do not allot someone apostolic authority merely because you listen to their message or attend a church that sells their books. If Paul, or Martin Luther, or anyone else is "allotted authority" it comes directly from the Lord, to whom all authority has been given.

Do you mean you don't do it, or you shouldn't do it? Because a heck of a lot of people in the LRC did it.

You say that this is practical discussion, not a theoretical one. Who allots apostolic authority to others? When do they do this? How? Why?

That's my question. So far, no one has done a good job of answering it.

You might think that only selling WL books in the church book room is allotting authority to him. However, that was never my experience.

The overall effect was Lee got credit for being an apostle. Your experience is the exception. And the exception proves the rule.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why not just accept the gifts that are given to the church. Don't label them.

If it is a gift, then it is a gift. If it is not, then it is not.

Even Martin Luther. Was he clearly an apostle? Who knows for sure. It depends on your definition. But he was a gift to the church.

And so are the ones who meet you at the door of your assembly, or help you find you way around. Or take time to talk and pray with you. Or teach — whether to adults or to children. Should I go on?

Do we need to define an apostle to get his help? Do we need to define an apostle to see and know charlitans, posers, frauds, or even just the overly ambitious?

Seems that living the Christian life has come to a stop for the purpose of hashing over a potentially theoretical point of theology for a purpose that we aren't even sure is relevant to us to know that well. Well, not to a complete stop. But it has been seriously slowed as we line up angels and get out the metaphorical pin. I have an opinion. And I stated part of it days ago. But it really isn't that important.

We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.

I think the motivation is easy to understand. If you conclude that there are no such apostles these days then you would be able to reject the ministry of WL and others with little effort. If you have a set of criteria, then at least you have a check list you can use. However, if it were that easy to discern false apostles then why does the Body need the gift of discernment?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why not just accept the gifts that are given to the church. Don't label them.

If it is a gift, then it is a gift. If it is not, then it is not.

Even Martin Luther. Was he clearly an apostle? Who knows for sure. It depends on your definition. But he was a gift to the church.

I agree with this.

We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.

This is why I don't like the simplified "apostles must still exist because the Bible doesn't say they don't."

That stance doesn't even bother to define an apostle, and so still leaves the door open for giving someone credit for having the authority of a first century apostle. All in the name of what seems to me misguided biblical purity.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is why I don't like the simplified "apostles must still exist because the Bible doesn't say they don't."

That stance doesn't even bother to define an apostle, and so still leaves the door open for giving someone credit for having the authority of a first century apostle. All in the name of what seems to me misguided biblical purity.

I thought we already hashed this out, and all agreed that the Bible is a completed book, therefore no one has authority to add or take away from it. Our use of the word apostle in this discussion was similar to the word "Missionary" -- someone who is sent out to establish churches.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

We have skipped the stipulation of facts, or failed to hash out the underlying facts first. Once apostle is defined, then we can deal with how to find them, or then begin to take on whether that is an ongoing "gift" to the body. And if someone is using a different definition, point them back to where it was decided what an apostle is/was. And if we decide that apostle has more than one meaning, then we need to be sure that we are talking about the same definition in the same context.

Excellent points Mike. As a practical matter I think we MUST start by looking at the examples provided to us in the New Testament. What did the original/early apostles teach and preach, and maybe even more important, how did they conduct themselves. We are not without examples and a clear record.

Now, this being said, I realize we are now about 2000 years down the road. We are facing realities that the original apostles would never have dreamed of. The "information age" can be both a blessing and a tremendous hindrance to "public figures". If the apostle Paul was around today do you think that everything published on the internet about him and his ministry would be positive?

Ok, ok I haven't addressed the issue of HOW DO WE DETERMINE just who is or who is not an apostle. Maybe if it's so darn hard to determine then maybe that's some sort of confirmation that they don't exist. We know that there are no apostles today that carry the authority and power of the original apostles. First and foremost there is nobody writing scripture. Also nobody is ministering with the same apostolic authority or healing people like the original apostles.

So what then are the necessary "requirements"? I would say that an apostle should exhibit the same traits (for lack of better term) as the original apostles. Maybe they are not writing scripture but they are relating foundational truths of doctrine and practice across a broad spectrum of the Church. This is one reason I would never accept Witness Lee as an apostle - he only ministered among those of his own isolated sect - he had a captive audience that was customized and ready-made to accept him as "the one minister with the one ministry for the age".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I thought we already hashed this out, and all agreed that the Bible is a completed book, therefore no one has authority to add or take away from it. Our use of the word apostle in this discussion was similar to the word "Missionary" -- someone who is sent out to establish churches.

I don't recall total assent to this, but if you believe there was, so much the better.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is why I don't like the simplified "apostles must still exist because the Bible doesn't say they don't."

That stance doesn't even bother to define an apostle, and so still leaves the door open for giving someone credit for having the authority of a first century apostle. All in the name of what seems to me misguided biblical purity.

I really wish the Bible were so much more nice and orderly and packaged for the believers. All these questions would be answered, and the sheep would be so very happy. I really mean it. Compared to religions like Islam, the Bible just don't spell things out sufficiently.

Why would the Spirit of God leave such an open-ended question as the existence of apostles? What was He thinking? Imagine how I felt the other day, in the midst of this "apostle" thread, talking to an old and distant friend about his church. He was describing the appointment of elders and the approval by the congregation. The brother who nominated the elders was applying "his apostolic authority as the church founder." Yikes!

I should have immediately drug his butt over to certain forum posters for some needed "education." Heretic! False apostle! Wolf! Whatever was he doing thinking that there are still apostles today? Imagine the dangers confronting those helpless sheep? Where are the signs and wonders and works of power? Where are the indisputable and verifiable displays of miraculous power?. Where are the CNN news reports of empty graves, with the former occupants "walking and leaping and praising God," and telling all the people it was "Apostle so-n-so" who raised him from the dead. Jesus raised Lazarus, "real" apostles must do the same!

I found it difficult to critique them myself, since they did preach the gospel, shepherd the sheep, and establish the church from "scratch," and whatever "apostolic authority" he did possess went no further than that little congregation. I have to admit I was taken back at his word, since I have been "properly informed." I had thought that all my "misguided biblical purity" was in remission, but such was not the case.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I really wish the Bible were so much more nice and orderly and packaged for the believers. All these questions would be answered, and the sheep would be so very happy. I really mean it. Compared to religions like Islam, the Bible just don't spell things out sufficiently.

Yeah, if God wrote it He sure didn't do a very good job of clearly spelling things out. God clearly needs some writing lessons.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah, if God wrote it He sure didn't do a very good job of clearly spelling things out. God clearly needs some writing lessons.

Perhaps that is why we are not instructed to walk by the letter of the word but by the Spirit.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the motivation is easy to understand. If you conclude that there are no such apostles these days then you would be able to reject the ministry of WL and others with little effort. If you have a set of criteria, then at least you have a check list you can use. However, if it were that easy to discern false apostles then why does the Body need the gift of discernment?

Don't get excited about my brief reappearance. But I stuck my two cents in, so I will complete its thought relative to your comments — specifically the ones about Lee.

If someone concludes that there are apostles today, and that the evidence of being an apostle is fully met by Lee, then I will point to specific teaching of one of the scripture-writing apostles — Paul — where he discusses the reasons for rejecting a teacher in general. Seems that Lee failed on several of those. So succeeding in someone's eyes at meeting their understanding of the marks of an apostle would only prove to me that either the marks could be faked, or it's not that easy.

In short, I don't need to discuss apostles to reject Lee. He can't get to local teacher. If you can't get there, you can't get to apostle. I believe that it would be hard to find any scripture that says otherwise.

And I return to some level of "not sure it matters" concerning whether apostles in the 1st century sense continue to exist today. Either they do or they don't. I don't need to find them and fawn over them. I just need to be open and learning from more than one isolated source. And vigilant to see the signs of personal and doctrinal error that suggest Paul's "he's not a valid teacher" rules in various places are being violated.

Seems that the people that I would be most suspicious about actually being an apostle are not trying to exert any kind of control over churches and believers. Just trying to offer their help. Those who are trying to exert control over churches and believers almost uniformly are violating Paul's "reject them" signs. That includes (well, included) Lee. And it includes the BBs in general. "Move along. There's nothing to see here. No apostles here." (Well, who knows, there may be one developing inside. But they surely haven't emerged yet.)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I really wish the Bible were so much more nice and orderly and packaged for the believers. All these questions would be answered, and the sheep would be so very happy. I really mean it. Compared to religions like Islam, the Bible just don't spell things out sufficiently.

Yeah, but if that were the case you wouldn't get these chances to be so scathingly sarcastic. Count your blessings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, but if that were the case you wouldn't get these chances to be so scathingly sarcastic. Count your blessings.

Then you don't think that your post was not aimed at Ohio?

You really don't feel that "misguided biblical purity" was not a cheap and sarcastic shot with me in mind?

I may have sounded sarcastic, but scathingly?

Listen, I presented a real conversation I had just last week in my post. In fact, that was not the first one on this thread. I talked about how this topic was of interest because it affects others around me. Why not rather address real situations, than just get a few digs in at me. Your posts which included scripture were the most helpful.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps that is why we are not instructed to walk by the letter of the word but by the Spirit.

Very good point indeed ... and by faith ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And I return to some level of "not sure it matters" concerning whether apostles in the 1st century sense continue to exist today. Either they do or they don't. I don't need to find them and fawn over them. I just need to be open and learning from more than one isolated source. And vigilant to see the signs of personal and doctrinal error that suggest Paul's "he's not a valid teacher" rules in various places are being violated.

I'm surprised you said this.

Do you really think that my goal or ZNP's goal is to find an apostle, and fawn over them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah, if God wrote it He sure didn't do a very good job of clearly spelling things out. God clearly needs some writing lessons.

Originally Posted by awareness

Very good point indeed ... and by faith ...

I believe that one day we will learn just how well-worded the Bible really is, both in what it says and in what it does not say.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then you don't think that your post was not aimed at Ohio?

You really don't feel that "misguided biblical purity" was not a cheap and sarcastic shot with me in mind?

I may have sounded sarcastic, but scathingly?

Listen, I presented a real conversation I had just last week in my post. In fact, that was not the first one on this thread. I talked about how this topic was of interest because it affects others around me. Why not rather address real situations, than just get a few digs in at me. Your posts which included scripture were the most helpful.

God knows my heart and knows I'm not getting digs into you. I am addressing the real situation, I think your and others' biblical purity is misguided. Deal with it in some other way other than getting your pride ruffled and accusing others of not being as serious as you claim to be.

Everyone here knows you are the one who has been picking on me, not the other way around. Ever since the Steve Isitt thing you've been doing it. I don't know what your problem is but please stop taking it out on me. I'm not your whipping boy.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You might think that only selling WL books in the church book room is allotting authority to him. However, that was never my experience. I bought more books that were not written by WL than were (in the church book room, I bought none at Christian bookstores or BN.com, etc. In fact, I may have bought more books that were not published by the LSM at the church bookstore than ones that were. If I recall correctly, I bought a Bible, a Concordance, a word study, and three biographies that were not published by LSM from the Houston Bookroom. I probably bought more than 5 LSM published books from that bookroom as well, but definitely not 5 WL books. Also, I think a few of the WN books I bought were not published by LSM. Based on that I would say I definitely bought more books that were not published by the LSM than were from the Houston bookstore.

Ah, the 70's! What magical days those must have been. The days of Puff the Magic Dragon and church bookrooms that actually sold books not published by Living Stream Ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Ah, the 70's! What magical days those must have been. The days of Puff the Magic Dragon and church bookrooms that actually sold books not published by Living Stream Ministry.

The publishing of the RcV was a really significant change. Now, all of a sudden, book rooms that had always sold Bibles could sell the RcV exclusively. Reference tools like a Concordance or word study could be pooh poohed because you had the "footnotes". They had also purchased rights to WN so they could eliminate other WN publications and have only the LSM ones. And, where saints once were encouraged to read the biographies of the past saints, this was not encouraged nearly as much.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

RayLiotta: Paul we give a pass to because of the weight of history. But if anyone else comes along and says, "Am I not also an apostle?" (1 Cor. 9:1) they are going to have to overcome the lack of 2,000 years of God's affirmation of such.

That includes Hudson Taylor, Martin Luther, Moody, Wesley, Graham, and anyone else you want to name.

Sure, but who's the "we" here? Based on what Ohio has said, it sounds like there are an awful lot of people for whom this explanation is highly unsatisfactory.

(And we're just talking about in the US, at least I think that's what we're talking about. Aren't there other parts of the world where Pentecostalism is really exploding right now? I don't know what the attitude toward "Apostles" is in other cultures, but I sure could speculate...)

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The publishing of the RcV was a really significant change. Now, all of a sudden, book rooms that had always sold Bibles could sell the RcV exclusively. Reference tools like a Concordance or word study could be pooh poohed because you had the "footnotes". They had also purchased rights to WN so they could eliminate other WN publications and have only the LSM ones. And, where saints once were encouraged to read the biographies of the past saints, this was not encouraged nearly as much.

No kidding. Funny how you leave out these 30 or so years of history when you make statements like, "I was in the LRC, what authority did I allot to WL? I cannot think of anything."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God knows my heart and knows I'm not getting digs into you. I am addressing the real situation, I think your and others' biblical purity is misguided. Deal with it in some other way other than getting your pride ruffled and accusing others of not being as serious as you claim to be.

Everyone here knows you are the one who has been picking on me, not the other way around. Ever since the Steve Isitt thing you've been doing it. I don't know what your problem is but please stop taking it out on me. I'm not your whipping boy.

Sorry for upsetting you, Igzy. I thought I was challenging your posts. Isn't that what we do on this forum? That's what happens to my posts, anyways, and I don't think you have "got it" any worse than I have in the past. Unfortunately, forums get heated at times, and I apologize for "picking on you."

In the absence of new posts directed my way, this topic probably has heard enough from me. I do appreciate what has been shared though. It's a difficult topic with huge differences in viewpoints. The Lord knows my heart too, and this is one topic that has troubled me for a long time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm surprised you said this.

Do you really think that my goal or ZNP's goal is to find an apostle, and fawn over them?

Absolutely not. But I do wonder just a little if the next logical step has been thought out completely. Not necessarily by any one person, but in the way almost every part of the discussion is going.

Apostles are mentioned. It is not a certainty that they continue on this day. But whatever they do or don't do, I would presume that they have been doing it for most of the 2,000 years without necessarily having any thought that they were such a thing. And most people have carried on as if it is not important to think about it.

So if we determine that there are some around, what are we supposed to do about it? Will it really change anything to discover that so-and-so is actually an apostle? It probably will change how closely I at least consider what he/she says.

But I doubt that Paul would simply say to just listen and accept. He would say to beware. And we are already doing that without adding "apostle" to the complexity of the analysis. If they fail at "teacher" then apostle is just right out. If they are acceptable as a teacher, to what extent? Some end out with supportive ministries, writing, etc., in a way that is not simply a big business. (BTW, it has been said by many that writing books is seldom a source of material income. Despite Lee and his slave-labor, you get no straw dungeon, most people just don't make much on writing books.) Maybe those that are helping beyond one local community or even one assembly are sometimes some kind of apostle. If their function is being realized and used, what would the public designation do? How would things really change?

I'm just wondering if we are going to be like the coyote after getting shrunk to the size of a mouse, when he grabs the road runner (full size) by the ankle and then looks at the screen, and raises a sign that says "Well, I've got him now. What am I supposed to do with him?"

In other words, if we have been going on this long with whatever kind of apostles there might have been, it begins to look like the ongoing benefit of an apostle is not that we identify them but that they are there doing whatever it is that they do.

[OBW]

BTW.

Being an apostle was not like being Jesus during his earthly ministry. The real followers of an apostle were generally not following him around from place-to-place, but following his teaching word-for-word. Apostles weren't around to have people flock after them. They were to help churches be what they needed to be.

So we are in churches. We are getting help (hopefully) from various sources, both within the assembly and without. We may not even realize all the places that the external help comes from. Do you think that as churches grew that everyone there was hanging all over the apostle(s) whenever they came to town, or when they sent a letter? Probably not, or at least less and less over time. But the church still benefited. It gets to your teachers who have immediate responsibility for serving you. And they take the help and pass it on. The letter to Galatia eventually gets to Ephesus and Sardis. Some of the details may not seem immediately applicable. But the true teacher takes note of it all and is ready to use it as needed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

No kidding. Funny how you leave out these 30 or so years of history when you make statements like, "I was in the LRC, what authority did I allot to WL? I cannot think of anything."

That's because what happened in the LRC in general did not affect me. I left Irving to go to Odessa, a home meeting that grew into a church in someone's home which then grew into a church in a meeting hall. I left when they were just unpacking the boxes for their first "book room".

I moved from there to New Hampshire where once again it was just a home meeting, only smaller.

A year later I flew from there to Taiwan for the FTTT where I stayed for the next 8 years. I lived in Taiwan even though my Chinese was at best rudimentary, so I didn't have any dealings with the book rooms. I did occasionally visit the Hall 1 book room but I could never find anything I was interested in.

I came back to the US in the Fall of '95 and had a very difficult two years before I left. So although I was in the LRC for 20 years, I didn't see what it was like in the US until the last 2. But even so, I didn't buy any LSM books during that time and we didn't use the LSM books for morning watch, we just used the Bible.

Some people say that my experience was unique, how would I know how unique it was? I speak from my experience, what else can I do?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Apostles are mentioned. It is not a certainty that they continue on this day. But whatever they do or don't do, I would presume that they have been doing it for most of the 2,000 years without necessarily having any thought that they were such a thing. And most people have carried on as if it is not important to think about it.

So if we determine that there are some around, what are we supposed to do about it? Will it really change anything to discover that so-and-so is actually an apostle? It probably will change how closely I at least consider what he/she says.

But I doubt that Paul would simply say to just listen and accept. He would say to beware. And we are already doing that without adding "apostle" to the complexity of the analysis.

This is not how the discussion began or has been sustained. No one has pushed the need to label someone's work as "apostolic". This began in Post #1 with Igzy saying "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."

Our response was to this.

1. Where in the NT does it say that the gift of apostles is gone? (no one is disputing that the original 12 Apostles + Paul are gone).

2. Is church tradition of shying away from the term Apostle a valid basis for a teaching or shouldn't our basis be the NT?

3. We all agree that the NT is the teaching of the apostles. However, some of us want a NT basis to say that "our apostle is the Scriptures". What is the NT basis to say this?

4. Is requiring a NT basis for a teaching really a reckless stance? Isn't the idea that you could have a teaching without a NT basis the really reckless stance?

Igzy's initial post was on August 24th, 16 days ago. Yet no one has done a satisfactory job of answering these questions. This is not like we got all upset after 3 days about a lack of NT evidence, we have been patiently waiting for 16 days for Scriptural support for the statements in the first post. What they have done is shown that the NT does not say emphatically that the gift of the Apostles remains to the end of the age. Surely you would agree that this certainly not adequate Scriptural support to say that therefore it ceased. We have also demonstrated fairly convincingly that there were numerous other people who the NT considered Apostles (and also false apostles and also derisively "super apostles"). So the idea that the gift of apostle only referred to the 12 + Paul has been debunked if anyone held that idea. This thread did discuss a working definition for apostle as "a missionary" if you understand the missionary as one who was sent to raise up churches. Some asked that if there still are apostles since the 12 who are they, and we have suggested a number of viable candidates which no one has really attempted to debunk. I also pointed out that the two witnesses in the book of revelation in many ways fit the idea of an apostle in that they are clearly sent by God with a mission that is wider than a single church or locality (that was one of the working definitions that was originally posited). Some pointed out that the work that these two do is described as "prophesying". However, I pointed out that Paul and John, both Apostles, also prophesied. However, these two do not have the mission of establishing churches, so if you want that to be the definition, which I think has a NT basis, then you could safely argue that the two witnesses should not be considered apostles.

However, and this is the crux of the matter, it seems this thread has moved towards this point of discerning false teachers. This was my original burden in raising the issue of the two witnesses. My point is that at that time, during the tribulation, Christians will be forced to discern between the two witnesses and the false prophet and the antichrist. All four will be doing miracles, so I find that to be a poor yardstick to use. So if your concern is over discerning false teachers it seems to me that the example of the two witnesses is quite relevant to the discussion.

So, to answer your question, will it really change anything if I consider that the false prophet or the antichrist is an apostle? Or if I discern that it is in fact the two witnesses that are the genuine article? It will probably determine ones fate for the next 1,000 years at best, and at worst their fate for eternity.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That's because what happened in the LRC in general did not affect me. I left Irving to go to Odessa, a home meeting that grew into a church in someone's home which then grew into a church in a meeting hall. I left when they were just unpacking the boxes for their first "book room"...

You asked Igzy how this is a practical discussion and not merely theoretical, because you never felt WL's "authority" personally. Yet you yourself know that your experience was not the majority experience. So when Igzy talks about "apostles" exercising real, practical control over churches, why do you respond as if you can't understand where he's coming from? That's what I don't understand.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I was going to ask you -- after all, you did attribute it to him?

Originally Posted by rayliotta

You asked Igzy how this is a practical discussion and not merely theoretical, because you never felt WL's "authority" personally. Yet you yourself know that your experience was not the majority experience. So when Igzy talks about "apostles" exercising real, practical control over churches, why do you respond as if you can't understand where he's coming from? That's what I don't understand.

I worked for LSM for many years, I went to almost every life study training either in Anaheim, or Irving. I worked in the fttt for many years. I lived in 6 diff localities and have visited more than 20 other localities during that time. Why wouldn't my experience be relevant?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. Where in the NT does it say that the gift of apostles is gone? (no one is disputing that the original 12 Apostles + Paul are gone).
2. Is church tradition of shying away from the term Apostle a valid basis for a teaching or shouldn't our basis be the NT?
3. We all agree that the NT is the teaching of the apostles.

Bro Mike will prolly hate this one ; thinking I always wax tangential from the topic.

Have you/we even considered that there may not be any certainty concerning apostles today?

I receive teachings from hundreds of different sources. But I don't need to elevate any of them, or endow them with some special authority.

A Church of Christ sister just recently revealed to me that for as far back as she can remember she's been looking for some authority to hook up to, but hasn't found it.

When I asked why she felt she needed an intermediary she was stunned at why she had never asked herself that question.

All her talk is : "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, is everything, and we depend only upon Him," but here she is looking for an intermediary authority.

Is that why we're so concerned about modern day apostles? Is our inner child guiding us? looking for a security blanket?

Thirty years ago I walked out of the local church because of the apostle thing ; that Lee was the apostle of the age.

I haven't needed an apostle ever since. Paul claimed to be apostle, but he also said he was a wretch.

Apostles? Thanks but no thanks. We're equals or we hint talking any more. And that goes for any of the apostles, if I could have met them.

If I need an answer, I might take a look in a hundred different places ... but ultimately I'm going to God.

And boy would I have lots to say to the self proclaimed apostle Saul. He might have been an apostle, but Paul was a very vexed man, with advertised issues, and even that mysterious thorn in his side. Paul was a thorny man ... we would have been equals.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

If I need an answer, I might take a look in a hundred different places ... but ultimately I'm going to God.

Praise God! Hallelujah! Hosanna in the highest!

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I worked for LSM for many years, I went to almost every life study training either in Anaheim, or Irving. I worked in the fttt for many years. I lived in 6 diff localities and have visited more than 20 other localities during that time. Why wouldn't my experience be relevant?

Not saying it isn't.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry for upsetting you, Igzy. I thought I was challenging your posts. Isn't that what we do on this forum? That's what happens to my posts, anyways, and I don't think you have "got it" any worse than I have in the past. Unfortunately, forums get heated at times, and I apologize for "picking on you."

In the absence of new posts directed my way, this topic probably has heard enough from me. I do appreciate what has been shared though. It's a difficult topic with huge differences in viewpoints. The Lord knows my heart too, and this is one topic that has troubled me for a long time.

Thank you, Ohio. What's hurt me most is us not getting along. But honestly, I've felt lately that you have been not only challenging my posts, but my integrity. When you call the belief that apostles don't exist today "convenient" that implies an ill-motive in the holder of that belief. And the sarcastic comment about your friend with the apostolic authority implied I wield an intolerance that I in fact do not hold.

When I use the word "misguided" I don't mean a bad heart, I simply mean "mistaken" or "out of balance."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is that why we're so concerned about modern day apostles? Is our inner child guiding us? looking for a security blanket?

I do not view an apostle as having some kind of intermediary authority. If the Lord sends someone out to do a task, then they have been sent with whatever authority is necessary to accomplish that task because their head is covered with the Lord's authority. I sat in Houston and listened as RG shared on and developed his theories on WL being the MOTA. I listened with respect that I think was due to RG, but I was always somewhat bemused at what the "great revelation" he felt he had was.

So what authority was necessary to teach the Bible and the Life Study trainings? I don't believe God would ever give someone the authority to silence their critics, the Lord said that if they treated Him this way they would treat us worse as the servant is not above the master. Paul was always dealing with critics. So in my mind RG's teaching was irrelevant. Regardless of what is what, WL's teaching would never be elevated to the level of scripture, that thought was never even contemplated by me until I heard it on this forum. Therefore, I continued to treat WL as I had prior to RG, I wanted to learn how to read the Bible for myself, when he shared on a verse I went to the verse to see if I could get into it. LS Trainings were an excuse to focus on one book of the Bible for a few months.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Not saying it isn't.

In Post #254 you said "You asked Igzy how this is a practical discussion and not merely theoretical, because you never felt WL's "authority" personally. Yet you yourself know that your experience was not the majority experience. So when Igzy talks about "apostles" exercising real, practical control over churches, why do you respond as if you can't understand where he's coming from? That's what I don't understand."

To which I responded that I was speaking from my own experience, why wouldn't my experience be relevant.

To which you respond that you aren't saying my experience isn't relevant.

So then, what are you saying?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I worked for LSM for many years, I went to almost every life study training either in Anaheim, or Irving. I worked in the fttt for many years. I lived in 6 diff localities and have visited more than 20 other localities during that time. Why wouldn't my experience be relevant?

You seemed to be offering your personal experience as an example of how most LRCers viewed Lee. But you are manifestly an exception, so not a great example of the typical LRCers beliefs about Lee. Most at least implicitly thought of him as an apostle. Many thought he was right up there with Paul.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. Where in the NT does it say that the gift of apostles is gone? (no one is disputing that the original 12 Apostles + Paul are gone).

Because one can argue that apostleship includes the power to establish the faith, and the faith cannot be further established. Therefore the office the early apostles had can no longer exist.

2. Is church tradition of shying away from the term Apostle a valid basis for a teaching or shouldn't our basis be the NT?

Shying away from using the term apostle is a prudent move given the confusion than can be caused by using it. The Bible doesn't require us to use specific terms, otherwise we would be required to call all church-administered pot-luck dinners "love feasts."

Again, I'm not denying that certain apostolic gifts still exist. I'm suggesting that using the title apostle is confusing because there are clearly two uses of it in the NT, the general gift of being a sent one, and the office of apostle, which was only held by a select handful which are all gone and cannot be repeated, in part because essential requirements were that they had seen the Lord Jesus and been witnesses to the resurrection.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You seemed to be offering your personal experience as an example of how most LRCers viewed Lee. But you are manifestly an exception, so not a great example of the typical LRCers beliefs about Lee. Most at least implicitly thought of him as an apostle. Many thought he was right up there with Paul.

No one should make more of my testimony than it is. My personal experience in the LRC

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Regardless of what is what, WL's teaching would never be elevated to the level of scripture, that thought was never even contemplated by me until I heard it on this forum. Therefore, I continued to treat WL as I had prior to RG,

Maybe you've told it and I don't remember. Between what years were you in the local church?

And RG taught that Lee was the minister of the age? What was that to you? Didn't that imply that Lee was something special?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, I'm not denying that certain apostolic gifts still exist. I'm suggesting that using the title apostle is confusing because there are clearly two uses of it in the NT, the general gift of being a sent one, and the office of apostle, which was only held by a select handful which are all gone and cannot be repeated, in part because essential requirements were that they had seen the Lord Jesus and been witnesses to the resurrection.

Interesting thought here... "gift" versus "office". Not sure I ever thought that there was an office of "apostle". I believe that the only offices in the Church are those of Elder and Deacon. When the apostle Paul said "he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists.." it seems to me he may have been referring to extra local church functions. Today the modern term may be "para church ministries". I really think Igzy is on to something here. This may be the answer to our dilemma - the "office" of apostle has passed away with the original apostles, but we still have the gifts. "He gave gifts to men" and "according to the measure of Christ's gift" seems to fit in with this notion.

So I think this would follow along with the terms "prophets" and "evangelists". In some Christian circles these two are considered positions or offices, but it seems that these may better considered as "gifts". Certainly there are those who have been given the gift of evangelism and those who have been given the gift of prophesy (careful on this one!) Of course none of these two (prophet or evangelist) carries the weight of the apostles authority, so this makes the term apostle more of a sticky wicket for us to deal with. So if there are those with "an apostolic gift", what sort of authority or "extra local" power should/could they have? If we consider that apostle is a gift and not an office are we still back at square one? Darn! I thought at the beginning of this post I (actually Igzy) was on to something. Now I'm not sure.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thank you, Ohio. What's hurt me most is us not getting along. But honestly, I've felt lately that you have been not only challenging my posts, but my integrity. When you call the belief that apostles don't exist today "convenient" that implies an ill-motive in the holder of that belief. And the sarcastic comment about your friend with the apostolic authority implied I wield an intolerance that I in fact do not hold.

When I use the word "misguided" I don't mean a bad heart, I simply mean "mistaken" or "out of balance."

Sorry again. We do have some miscommunication to address. You misinterpreted me challenging your integrity as an "ill-motive," and I misinterpreted your "misguided" comment.

How about we wipe the slate clean and start fresh? I apologize for for all the posts that hurt you. Friends should be allowed to disagree, and have a "fair fight," but some of my sarcasm crossed the line. Please forgive me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, I'm not denying that certain apostolic gifts still exist. I'm suggesting that using the title apostle is confusing because there are clearly two uses of it in the NT, the general gift of being a sent one, and the office of apostle, which was only held by a select handful which are all gone and cannot be repeated, in part because essential requirements were that they had seen the Lord Jesus and been witnesses to the resurrection.

I think this introduces a new thought into the discussion. I agree there seems to be "the general gift of being a sent one, and the office of an apostle." Paul and the Twelve held the office of the apostle, while Epaphroditus may have had the general gift of the apostle.

When we consider the church, most agree there are two offices, elder and deacon. But, when we consider the body of Christ, are there now 5 offices: apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd and teacher? I believe this is an area of uncertainty that was definitely exploited by WL.

Do the "offices" of the body outrank the "offices" of the church? WL certainly thought so. The RCC also thought so. WL claimed the apostleship based on his work, and then bull-dozed many elders and deacons of LC's. He felt justified by scripture. Still today, the role of LC elders is little more than franchise management. WL even went on record saying that elders had local responsibilities like determining the times of meeting. That to me is a church office effectively neutered of any real responsibility.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry again. We do have some miscommunication to address. You misinterpreted me challenging your integrity as an "ill-motive," and I misinterpreted your "misguided" comment.

How about we wipe the slate clean and start fresh? I apologize for for all the posts that hurt you. Friends should be allowed to disagree, and have a "fair fight," but some of my sarcasm crossed the line. Please forgive me.

Forgive me as well. Great idea, you got it!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is not how the discussion began or has been sustained. No one has pushed the need to label someone's work as "apostolic". This began in Post #1 with Igzy saying "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."

Our response was to this.

1. Where in the NT does it say that the gift of apostles is gone? (no one is disputing that the original 12 Apostles + Paul are gone).

2. Is church tradition of shying away from the term Apostle a valid basis for a teaching or shouldn't our basis be the NT?

3. We all agree that the NT is the teaching of the apostles. However, some of us want a NT basis to say that "our apostle is the Scriptures". What is the NT basis to say this?

4. Is requiring a NT basis for a teaching really a reckless stance? Isn't the idea that you could have a teaching without a NT basis the really reckless stance?

....

However, and this is the crux of the matter, it seems this thread has moved towards this point of discerning false teachers. This was my original burden in raising the issue of the two witnesses. My point is that at that time, during the tribulation, Christians will be forced to discern between the two witnesses and the false prophet and the antichrist.

...

So, to answer your question, will it really change anything if I consider that the false prophet or the antichrist is an apostle? Or if I discern that it is in fact the two witnesses that are the genuine article? It will probably determine ones fate for the next 1,000 years at best, and at worst their fate for eternity.

And I think that returning to a touchstone of the "historical" faith as taught by the apostles, recorded in the NT, and continually reviewed in a "current context" answers the whole thing.

In the first century, the core of the faith was not written down. It was being taught by word of mouth in an era in which what happened in the next town over might not be known for days. And the workings of a little religious sect might not be know of in a large city in all parts for quite some time. So the idea that there needed to be a way to know who was speaking to you to "fill in" the teachings was important.

And while the NT as written is not exhaustive, it is a core from which anything should spring. It is not "the apostle" but it is a touchstone against which any kind of teaching can be compared, whether from just another teacher or a self-proclaimed apostle.

So looking for another way to tell if the end-time "Prophets" are the Antichrist or the real deal should not be some special task that we need to gear up for. It should be more of the same. We should be keen to the truth at all times. We should not be swayed by grandiose claims and appearances. Besides, in this day and age, no one is going to perform a "miracle" that will be certified clearly as real vs just another Houdini-like trick. Another illusionist. But notice that there are many who fawn all over illusionists, so even an illusion done well gets a following.

Is requiring a NT basis for teaching a reckless stance? Seems to me to be the only one we have. If it is not square-on with the NT, are we to accept that the appearance of a miracle makes their alternate teaching sound? In other words, God's word changes because a guy with signs and wonders changes it? I suspect that any true apostles will simply speak with more authority inside of the confines of what is already there. Isn't that what Jesus did?

And last. One of the things that has caused me to tire of this forum is that I and others can make significant statements as a whole that paint one picture and get picked-apart on a small item down in the details. I know that those small items may be important. But I try to see whether those seem to alter how to read the rest rather than be read as altered by the context. In other words, does the detail drive the context or should the context drive the understanding of the details.

Back to the ignition of this thread: It does seem that there is difficulty arriving at any kind of clear word on what we could call an apostle today. But I do not see there being such an uncertainty in arriving at the "apostles teaching" no matter how we conclude on the continuance of apostles. The apostles taught and it was recorded. That does not make the scripture an apostle, but it is their teaching. And there is a succession of teaching of that from the first ones to this day. And if there are apostles today, they are not adding new scripture that disagrees with the old, so there is still a connection to what we have written. And we have a huge body of "commentary."

And in the end, it might be that for all of the concerns about what is and what is not an apostle, knowing how to accept or reject a teacher might be all the "rules" you need. Even for missing the little dark closet of the millennium (if Lee was right).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If we consider that apostle is a gift and not an office are we still back at square one? Darn! I thought at the beginning of this post I (actually Igzy) was on to something. Now I'm not sure.

This wasn't an original thought of mine. I got it from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (which I highly recommend. His thoughts on the Trinity are excellent.)

Actually, I think there may be something to it. Someone could have the gift of eldership without the office. Likewise someone could have an apostolic gift without an apostolic office. The office give extra authority in the body. These days the office could be non-extant, while the gift remains.

I'm not sure evangelist, shepherd and teacher had or have corresponding offices. These may just be gifts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe you've told it and I don't remember. Between what years were you in the local church?

And RG taught that Lee was the minister of the age? What was that to you? Didn't that imply that Lee was something special?

I came into the church in the Spring of '78 and left the same weekend that WL died.

In the Spring of 1981 RG began sharing something that ultimately congealed into his MOTA teaching. It started with the concept that if an apostle is a sent one, and that anyone who is a "sent one" is an apostle then surely WL is an apostle. This would receive a response from some as though this was some great, and deep truth. To me it was "yeah, so what?" But not disrespectfully. He then added to this the verse about how "you owe me even your own life" and started talking about how we owed WL. My response to that was "what are you talking about", but of course I never stood up and said that, more of a keep that to yourself response. Finally, he would say something that I felt was stupid, something to the effect that even if you don't know what you are doing, the safe choice is to follow WL. My response to that was that if you don't know what you are doing, that is the issue. Solve that problem. But all of it seemed contrived to me, he seemed to feel he had some great and deep revelation, and to me it was nothing but foolishness.

In June I went to Irving to build the meeting hall and everything changed. We worked 16 hour days, and we worked 7 days a week. Taking time off to go to the meeting was discouraged. I ignored that and went to the Lord's day meeting. I was asked directly to stop going, but again I just ignored that. My feeling was I'm a volunteer, if you want to send me back to Houston because I am only giving you 100 hours a week on the jobsite instead of 108 go ahead. However, while there I never heard anything more of this teaching by RG.

18 months later we had the Peter training in Irving and immediately after that I moved to Odessa, which was a home meeting at the time. Again, while in Odessa I never heard anything more of RG's teaching or the teaching of the MOTA. I spent one year in New Hampshire in a situation with an even smaller home meeting. Then I went to the FTTT.

I don't really recall ever hearing anything of the teaching after leaving Houston, but I may have heard the term "Minister of the Age" prior to coming to this forum. While in Taiwan I was forced to listen to meetings through translators, so you can miss a lot of what is going on.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course none of these two (prophet or evangelist) carries the weight of the apostles authority, so this makes the term apostle more of a sticky wicket for us to deal with.

Ah, bringing in Cricket terms here, quite subtle, since we all know that the left handed googly is called "the Chinaman". Touche.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Besides, in this day and age, no one is going to perform a "miracle" that will be certified clearly as real vs just another Houdini-like trick.

I consider this concept to be very dangerous, and you are now the second poster on this thread to express it. We all know that the False prophet, and Antichrist will be performing miracles. We also know that the two witnesses will also be performing miracles. What we don't know is if "this day and age" is their day and age. For all we know, they could pop up on the news tomorrow.

To me this concept is like having the third 100 year flood in ten years. It is time to change your concept. You are asking to be blindsided with this concept.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Is requiring a NT basis for teaching a reckless stance? Seems to me to be the only one we have. If it is not square-on with the NT, are we to accept that the appearance of a miracle makes their alternate teaching sound? In other words, God's word changes because a guy with signs and wonders changes it? I suspect that any true apostles will simply speak with more authority inside of the confines of what is already there. Isn't that what Jesus did?

Well said.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And last. One of the things that has caused me to tire of this forum is that I and others can make significant statements as a whole that paint one picture and get picked-apart on a small item down in the details. I know that those small items may be important. But I try to see whether those seem to alter how to read the rest rather than be read as altered by the context. In other words, does the detail drive the context or should the context drive the understanding of the details.

Personally I hate mosquitos. I know that most of God's creatures are good, but I still can't figure out what the deal is with mosquitos.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I consider this concept to be very dangerous, and you are now the second poster on this thread to express it. We all know that the False prophet, and Antichrist will be performing miracles. We also know that the two witnesses will also be performing miracles. What we don't know is if "this day and age" is their day and age. For all we know, they could pop up on the news tomorrow.

To me this concept is like having the third 100 year flood in ten years. It is time to change your concept. You are asking to be blindsided with this concept.

I'm not sure that I follow. I am merely saying that looking for signs and wonders in a day when it is commonplace to create the illusion of the miraculous makes the testing almost impossible. So we need a different approach.

Yes, assuming that the part about the False prophet, Antichrist, and two witnesses are intended to be literal and not yet another sign to be interpreted, we will have a problem.

And actually, I begin to wonder whether the whole premise that these charges to test apostles was intended to be for the "average Christian" is a valid thought. Are these clearly stated to everyone? Not everything in the NT is. We have kept it and called it scripture. But is/was all of it written for the general consumption of the people? I note that Paul wrote specifically to Timothy a couple of times. And some of the more direct words he gave on checking out teachers, elders, etc. were in those letters. Yes. There is some in Thessalonians. But it does seem evident that even as Paul wrote, he did not have the concept that everyone was an elder or leader. Or that everything he wrote was about everyone. Some of it is very pointedly at the leadership.

This does not answer any question. But I believe that it does make the question even more problematic if we are presuming that everyone is supposed to be figuring out the False prophet on their own.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Personally I hate mosquitos. I know that most of God's creatures are good, but I still can't figure out what the deal is with mosquitos.

Huh?? What are you talking about?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Huh?? What are you talking about?

one of those little things that annoy me. What were you talking about?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not sure that I follow. I am merely saying that looking for signs and wonders in a day when it is commonplace to create the illusion of the miraculous makes the testing almost impossible. So we need a different approach.

Yes, assuming that the part about the False prophet, Antichrist, and two witnesses are intended to be literal and not yet another sign to be interpreted, we will have a problem.

And actually, I begin to wonder whether the whole premise that these charges to test apostles was intended to be for the "average Christian" is a valid thought. Are these clearly stated to everyone? Not everything in the NT is. We have kept it and called it scripture. But is/was all of it written for the general consumption of the people? I note that Paul wrote specifically to Timothy a couple of times. And some of the more direct words he gave on checking out teachers, elders, etc. were in those letters. Yes. There is some in Thessalonians. But it does seem evident that even as Paul wrote, he did not have the concept that everyone was an elder or leader. Or that everything he wrote was about everyone. Some of it is very pointedly at the leadership.

This does not answer any question. But I believe that it does make the question even more problematic if we are presuming that everyone is supposed to be figuring out the False prophet on their own.

Yes, I think the record in the NT is consistent, we should know the truth, and be able to discern the truth. As for miracles the NT never put any trust in those that sought them, wanted to see them, or followed the Lord because He did them.

On the contrary, if you put the truth up first, and then realize that the cross is a narrow way, rejecting the flesh, then I think it will be a simple matter to discern the genuine witnesses from the false. However, if you don't know the truth to begin with you will be in a very difficult position at that point.

As for "the average Christian" I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't want to assume the worst, so I hope you can clarify that expression.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I think the record in the NT is consistent, we should know the truth, and be able to discern the truth. As for miracles the NT never put any trust in those that sought them, wanted to see them, or followed the Lord because He did them.

On the contrary, if you put the truth up first, and then realize that the cross is a narrow way, rejecting the flesh, then I think it will be a simple matter to discern the genuine witnesses from the false. However, if you don't know the truth to begin with you will be in a very difficult position at that point.

As for "the average Christian" I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't want to assume the worst, so I hope you can clarify that expression.

Seems to me that we're squabbling over matters in thin air ....

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In Post #254 you said "You asked Igzy how this is a practical discussion and not merely theoretical, because you never felt WL's "authority" personally. Yet you yourself know that your experience was not the majority experience. So when Igzy talks about "apostles" exercising real, practical control over churches, why do you respond as if you can't understand where he's coming from? That's what I don't understand."

To which I responded that I was speaking from my own experience, why wouldn't my experience be relevant.

To which you respond that you aren't saying my experience isn't relevant.

So then, what are you saying?

I'm going to defer to Igzy here --

Originally Posted by Igzy

You seemed to be offering your personal experience as an example of how most LRCers viewed Lee. But you are manifestly an exception, so not a great example of the typical LRCers beliefs about Lee. Most at least implicitly thought of him as an apostle. Many thought he was right up there with Paul.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No one should make more of my testimony than it is. My personal experience in the LRC

Yet reading your post 225, can't you see how we might think you were applying your experience more broadly than that?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As for "the average Christian" I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't want to assume the worst, so I hope you can clarify that expression.

Actually, from where I sit, the worst would be a church age in which every Christian is expected to be fully grounded in the details of correct theology. Who must each take upon themselves the job of ferreting out bad teachers, apostles, etc., and must entirely self-feed. Christianity's version of the Army of One, which I will call the Church of One (C1).

In C1, there is no farm or building, but all are the workers.
In C1, Jesus did not have a few followers who were the close circle getting the detailed teachings, then more followers who traveled constantly with him and got a lot of His teachings, then the majority of his follower who stayed in their towns and followed the teachings of the one who came and performed the miracles and said how to think and live more righteously. Instead, only those who left all and followed were his followers. And only those who got to be on the inside were the followers.
In C1, there are not "big letter" apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers to perfect everyone else for their works of ministry. Instead, everyone has to become big in something.
In C1, everyone has every spiritual gift because they want it. And they need them all because they do not rely on anyone else to have that particular gift. They must have it for themselves.
In C1, Paul wrote to Timothy simply because he had to address it to someone. It was intended that everyone understand the charge to direct certain ones not to teach certain things, or to understand the qualifications for elder and deacon and become one.
In C1, there is no flock with a shepherd, just a flock of shepherds.

In C1, the most important parts of the NT are all those commentaries by Paul about specific things that went wrong in various churches. And the point is not that they have what they need to fix it, but that they should be focused on getting what they need and eventually fix it.

But in the church, the assembly of the redeemed, there are workers and there are the farm, the building. There are shepherds and there is a flock.

No. The flock is not just stupidly moving from sparse field to sparse field eating a little grass here and there as the shepherd doles it out. But they are not all rising to be fully shepherds.

The way we have been taught for many years — and not just in the LRC — is that we are all on our own. I do not think that everyone reading their own Bible is bad. It is very good. But everyone trying to glean their own interpretation of things is the early stages of C1 syndrome. We should be reading. But reading to see for ourselves what those who are our teachers have shown us or at least tried to show us. We read to focus and strengthen our "ethic" concerning what we learn "in the temple" so that as we live house-to-house, and at work, and in the marketplace, etc., we are living a life that will get inquiries.

When Peter said to always have an answer for every man, he was not talking about having a gospel message to proclaim from a street corner. He was expecting that each of those "different lives" being lived out in the places in which they were lived would be questioned by the people who noticed. Have an answer. If they are not asking, then it is probably that the life is not sufficiently different to be noticed and raise a question.

And last. All the focus on whether or not there are present apostles and how to detect the true from the false (if there are present apostles) is taking our eyes off of our real task, which is living changed lives, and putting them onto people. And at least some of the rhetoric seems to think that it is that task of every one of us — a bunch of C1s — to be up on it.

This is based on a view of the gospels and the epistles that sees the primacy of the gospel in following and obeying and not in the teaching. Some of the epistles were written expressly to the teachers. And some were written to the flock. But in the gospel, it is your life that seems to matter the most, not your theological knowledge or your ability to discern true apostles.

[ZNPaaneah]

After perusing this post of yours I still don't know what you mean by the term "average Christian". I do hope you could give us a definition in 100 words or less.

I do know that the NT says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" so although the elders are watching over the flock, ultimately the responsibility for your walk as a Christian is up to you. So if you receive the teaching of someone that leads you astray, no doubt they will be judged, but you also will be held accountable. RG's teaching that even if you are wrong, if you are following "the Apostle" you are right, in my mind is a bogus teaching.

I do know that the NT teaches that we each will have to stand before the judgement seat of Christ to answer for what we have done during this life, whether good or bad. So even if Jim Jones or someone else gave the order to prepare the Kool aid, you are still responsible for your actions. Similar to the way the Nazi war criminals are judged.

I do know that Jesus said "abide in me and I in you" and that any branch that didn't abide in Him would be cut off and cast into the fire. Arguing that you were just following some other man's teaching when you agreed to excommunicate TC, to me, does not justify you. Even if you want to argue that you were an "average Christian" in the LRC. You are still held accountable for realizing that the basis for the excommunication was not scriptural. I feel that if someone cuts someone off from fellowship, as in the case of TC, based on teachings that are erroneous, they are in fact the ones being broken off from the vine. I think this is evidenced by a group becoming exclusive and not wanting to fellowship with the rest of the Body, they themselves have been broken off from the vine.

I do know that we have many different gifts in the body, but just because someone is a gifted evangelist doesn't mean that other Christians who are not "gifted" are not responsible to preach the gospel. I know that the charge that the Lord gave us to go into world and preach the gospel was to every Christian, not merely to the "gifted" ones. This word in Matthew "28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Was spoken to all Christians.

Is it true that many Christians are not "gifted" teachers, and that only a few should go so far as to publish books? I would agree with that. But on the other hand I believe that the charge to be ready in season and out of season to give an answer to those that ask should apply to all christians, whether or not you are a "gifted" teacher. You are the best person to answer your coworkers question, or your friends question, or your relative's question.

[UntoHim]

No, let's keep the subject of "an average Christian" out of this thread. Let's stick to the subject of apostles. There are too many wandering posts here, attempting to address too many non related issues.

Before we hit that "Submit Reply" button let's make sure the post is addressing the matter of apostles.

[OBW]

Unto: I am not going to try to give a definition. But I believe that there is something in the realization that the church is mostly a collection of those who follow, have been baptized, and who obey rather than who have studied like they are in seminary. It does give a different light to the meaning of the things we are currently discussing.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do know that the NT says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" so although the elders are watching over the flock, ultimately the responsibility for your walk as a Christian is up to you. So if you receive the teaching of someone that leads you astray, no doubt they will be judged, but you also will be held accountable.

At some level. And to the extent that you find that you have been duped into following something that is not even really scripture, then I would say you are correct. But I do not expect that everyone will necessarily be up on all the criteria for excommunication. So while I agree that tossing TC was not a reasonable exercise of those criteria, the members in many cities who hardly even know it happened have no basis for saying it was or was not correct. In other words, they are not culpable, and they have no basis to complain to their leadership concerning what happened.

As for what it will mean at the judgment is not a certainty. Even for those who have somewhat better knowledge, but were susceptible to follow the misapplication of scripture of the BBs, I'm not clear whether that is almost like being one of the BBs and will be punished.

In any case, the LRC position seems to be that only those who qualify as near-leadership in their personal application of the LRC brand of righteousness (sometimes something that looks more like unrighteousness) will get to miss the millennial summer school.

If that is the case, then the way that Jesus taught to the masses would seem to be deficient because he didn't tell them a whole lot of this kind of stuff. Instead, it was reserved for the somewhat smaller group that followed everywhere, and even some for only the 12.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

RG's teaching that even if you are wrong, if you are following "the Apostle" you are right, in my mind is a bogus teaching.

I would agree. And this is different from diligently learning from someone and following the best that you can in general. That teaching of RG was meant to cause people who could see through the unrighteousness to ignore it and continue following it anyway. I am not saying "don't exercise any judgment." I'm saying that to the extent that you don't have cause to make the judgment, accepting the judgment of someone whom you have come to trust is not a deficient thing.

And returning to the 12:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This word in Matthew "28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Was spoken to all Christians.

Actually, only to the 11.

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

And I was not saying that we should not have an answer. But the context of Peter's statement was to the question raised by someone who observed the difference in your life — whether relative to your old life, or to the normal lives of the rest of society around you. Surely we have the wherewithal to say something about the Life that changed our life. But that does not mean that we individually should have the knowledge to get into a full-fledged debate of apologetics about our belief system. I think if you look at what I said before, you will see that I said Peter's statement was not about apologetics, or even about going out an preaching the gospel, but about simply acknowledging the source of the change in our lives.

I agree that none of this changes whether or not there are or are not apostles. Or whether or not someone needs to be able to spot the genuine article and differentiate it from the false. But I do have some level of thought that maybe it is not everyone's responsibility — a responsibility for a church of 1 to get right or fall so hard.

In other words, while I can make a significant case for differentiation between the kind of "believe what we tell you to or else" position of the LRC leadership and the common acceptance of "the way I learned it," the overall pattern of teachers imparting what they have learned to the whole of a flock who will then, for the most part, take it to heart and change their lives and live by it is pretty much what we see in the NT.

But because of the peculiar nature of the things that Lee taught us, we now have the impression that all of the NT was written to every Christian and that we are to be just as knowledgeable on all the doctrines and teachings that Paul was. In other words, be Paul without the status of Apostle. I don't see it. Especially if I read the gospels then assume that whatever Paul is writing is supposed to marry up with them. When I do try to harmonize them, I begin to see a legitimate tiering — not in the way of a hierarchy, but in responsibility. There are those whose gift and service is to teach and lead the rest of us. Their failure is not necessarily ours. Notice that Jesus did not fault the Jews who had sort of given up as much as those who were the teachers and did a lousy job of it (being nice to them).

So whose job is it to detect apostles? And depending on your answer to that question, what do we think we are doing here debating the existence and/or qualifications for a present-day apostle? We might just be in over our heads (unless one or more of us is legitimately a teacher).

But it doesn't seem like we have actually arrived at any kind of conclusions. More like realized that we can't even agree on the bounds of the discussion.

This is not a barb to anyone. It is an observation of the whole discussion. It is disjointed because everyone is talking from their understanding of each term. We can't agree on what is an apostle in the first century. Or definitely how to determine who was in and who was out. (And that is just one more problem with so many of these kinds of what I will call esoteric discussions. It is more about who is in and who is out than something of spiritual benefit to us all. And then someone will say that we shouldn't even be talking about Lee then. But Paul gave too clear a criteria for rejecting teachers. And Lee failed. Don't need a degree in discerning teachers to see it. And don't need to worry about "apostles" to do it.)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

But it doesn't seem like we have actually arrived at any kind of conclusions. More like realized that we can't even agree on the bounds of the discussion.

This thread only started 2 1/2 weeks ago, and besides I'm not sure the goal is to have 100% consensus or any kind of firm conclusion. We are a fairly diverse group here and firm conclusions are going to be very hard to come by..and that's ok when it comes to a subject like apostles. Since our view of apostles is not a core matter of the faith, I think it's ok if we end up agreeing to disagree.

As far as "the bounds of the discussion" I think each thread is more or less self explanatory - the title of the thread gives us the bounds of the discussion. "Apostles" - We know that there were apostles appointed directly by the Lord Jesus (these we may refer to as the "original apostles"). We know that there were apostles who functioned in the first century, including those probably appointed by the original apostles. We know that there were a number of early scholars/teachers/leaders that functioned more or less as "second generation" apostles. (we can haggle over this) So we know these things. We have a firm and clear written record. Where things get murky is if true apostles (who function at least partly as the original apostles) continue on through today. I think the key is to never lose sight of what the original apostles taught and how they conducted themselves. So if somebody who claims to be, or is called by others, an apostle we are not without a way to compare and contrast.

This is not a barb to anyone. It is an observation of the whole discussion. It is disjointed because everyone is talking from their understanding of each term. We can't agree on what is an apostle in the first century.

It's disjointed because people keep sidetracking us with all sorts of unrelated issues. Of course we can agree on what is an apostle in the first century...that is if we can all agree that the New Testament is a true and complete record and has faithfully recorded for us all the pertinent who, what and where and when.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

that is if we can all agree that the New Testament is a true and complete record and has faithfully recorded for us all the pertinent who, what and where and when.

A chasm so wide and deep that none of the data can be accessed with any degree of certainty. For starters the record is not complete or we wouldn't be in such a quandary concerning apostles.

[UntoHim]

Ok, our very own doubting Thomas has chimed in (with the usual chime of course )

Anybody else?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, our very own doubting Thomas has chimed in (with the usual chime of course )

Great sense of humor UnToHim. Had me crackin up.

And yes, anyone else got somethin to contribute ...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As far as "the bounds of the discussion" I think each thread is more or less self explanatory - the title of the thread gives us the bounds of the discussion. "Apostles" - We know that there were apostles appointed directly by the Lord Jesus (these we may refer to as the "original apostles"). We know that there were apostles who functioned in the first century, including those probably appointed by the original apostles. We know that there were a number of early scholars/teachers/leaders that functioned more or less as "second generation" apostles. (we can haggle over this) So we know these things. We have a firm and clear written record. Where things get murky is if true apostles (who function at least partly as the original apostles) continue on through today. I think the key is to never lose sight of what the original apostles taught and how they conducted themselves. So if somebody who claims to be, or is called by others, an apostle we are not without a way to compare and contrast.

Yes, that is a bounds. And it is a broad one. Broad enough that even that one word - apostle - is unclear enough that we don't really know what to do with it.

And it seems to have significantly unique a standing, at lest in some minds, that an apostle could either be rejectable as a teacher and still be a legitimate apostle, or could be acceptable as a teacher and be rejected as an apostle. Now I buy the latter because some that that might be a legitimate teacher could be held to a higher level in the minds of some. But if those minds include the teacher himself/herself, then there is a disconnect. And there should be some evidence that the teacher is not as qualified as we first thought since he/she manages to think that much more highly of them self as they ought.

But if they don't meet the "teacher" criteria, why would you even start thinking about any other criteria?

And if our belief in the acceptable teaching coming from an apostle is to speak words that stand in opposition to the records of God's speaking from the early times until now (both the OT and the NT), then we would seem to have greater problems in that we believe in a God of inconsistency. Of capriciousness.

And when you look at virtually all of the historical record since the first century AD, and the only thing you can point to as possibly an apostle are the leaders that seemed more profound in some way — and especially those that taught more of a mystical spirituality than a practicality of Christian living — and have no idea how to qualify them as such other than that you like their "newer" teachings, then we really don't seem to know much about the subject other than the words in which it is framed.

And you and others have pointed out that those original apostles did lay down the base of our faith. They either directly or indirectly put it in writing. But until that happened, the only way you knew that someone was consistently teaching the true gospel was that they we found to have been on of the ones who heard it first hand. And some special marks were given to them.

But with the recording of the faith, there is a lessening of a need for some kind of remarkable sign to establish a teacher. They just need to be within the rather broad (yet narrow) bounds of the truth passed down from the apostles.

Now I have heard missionaries who went into remote areas where they had to slowly learn a new language while among people who had never heard the gospel of Jesus and wouldn't simply accept it as meaningful if they could read it. Some of these missionaries tell of events — miracles, or signs that were meaningful to the locals — that even they were unable to understand or believe except that they knew God's hand was in it. And the result was that they were suddenly accepted by those that saw the sign as telling the truth. Suddenly these missionaries went from being a total outsider who was distrusted to being accepted by at least a portion of the people. And he gospel had a foot hold. Then as the ones who believe began to have their lives changed, others began to see and believe.

So some believed because of the sign. But ultimately more come to believe because they see for themselves.

And this is where it all leads to me. I believe that even the existence of the first century apostles was a gift to the spread of the gospel and the church. And the gifts are given as needed. If that understanding of the gifts is at least somewhat accurate, then there is no particular gift that is literally always required. Surely some are generally needed throughout the continued history of this fallen world. But are all? Or even if occasionally needed, is it an regular, ongoing thing? I'm not really sure. It seems that despite the negative rhetoric of Lee, and even somewhat of Nee and a lot of other "inner life" teachers, the church has really done quite well. The apostles' teaching seems to be continuing to this day. Not perfectly. But based on Paul's letters, that would be true from the beginning.

And so here we are, trying to decide what is an apostle. And unless we conclude that they are certainly over (not sure that is true) then what are we going to do with it? Try to determine who is and is not a present-day apostle? It won't happen. We will just like what we like and dislike what we dislike. What do we gain by elevating teachers? Harold would probably say it best — puffed-up teachers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, that is a bounds. And it is a broad one. Broad enough that even that one word - apostle - is unclear enough that we don't really know what to do with it.

And it seems to have significantly unique a standing, at lest in some minds, that an apostle could either be rejectable as a teacher and still be a legitimate apostle, or could be acceptable as a teacher and be rejected as an apostle.

I do believe that some gifts to the body, considered by some to be an apostle in operation, may later be disqualified due to personal failure. This perhaps may have been the impetus for Rome's "infallibility" tenet.

At least Rome had a caveat for their MotaPope's, vis-a-vis their actions may criminal, but their teachings are "infallible." Anaheim had no such caveat.

[Cal]

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God. In others words, if they spoke something, to the Christians that looked up to them as apostles, their word was as good as the word of God. It's important to realize that no such equivalent can exist today. The word is established, and Revelation warns against adding to it.

The LRC approached and approaches giving Lee this authority. Basically their view was Lee's interpretation of the word is as good as the word--and the corollary, Lee's interpretation is better than anyone's including yours, which precludes your exercising your own interpretation--a stunning limitation!

Now, outside of fringe groups, I don't know of any preeminent Christian teacher in history after the 1st century being afforded that kind of authority. One has to ask oneself, is it legitimate? In my judgment, no way.

It's also important to note that no major Christian teacher including Luther, Calvin, and others, ever sought or accepted the designation of apostle.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Where things get murky is if true apostles (who function at least partly as the original apostles) continue on through today. I think the key is to never lose sight of what the original apostles taught and how they conducted themselves. So if somebody who claims to be, or is called by others, an apostle we are not without a way to compare and contrast

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do believe that some gifts to the body, considered by some to be an apostle in operation, may later be disqualified due to personal failure.

Maybe the truth is that nobody can actually live up to the standard of an apostle. Maybe the truth is that the Body of Christ is so much larger than in the first century, that to have such universal “overseers” is not practical. I am not making dogmatic statements, more like just talking to myself out loud.

“considered by some to be an apostle in operation” - this may be a key in our considerations. Is it possible that someone could be functioning as an apostle to a group of churches (or an affiliation of churches), and recognized by this group as an apostle of sorts, but not recognized by any other group? Does this make this person any less of an apostle if he is only recognized by the group he ministers among? Under this interpretation maybe Witness Lee was an apostle, at least within the sphere of the Local Church.

“may later be disqualified due to personal failure” – Does this bring us back to the “nobody can actually live up to the standard of an apostle?” When it comes to the case of Witness Lee, maybe his personal failures should have disqualified him from reaching “apostle status” in the first place. There were older brothers around (in the US and Taiwan) at the beginning of the Movement in the US that could have sounded the warning but chose not to do so. This is a serious mistake that the Local Church has suffered the repercussions of since the beginning. In all fairness though, nobody can see into the future, and besides is it fair to “try those who call themselves apostles” before they even call themselves apostles?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God.

Really, really good point! What I would add is that original apostles (at least Paul) made it perfectly clear that the believers were to "do what I say and do what I do" They were an example in word AND deed. This is especially evident in the apostle Paul's letters to the Corinthians. He made it clear that his authority among them was derived not only from his words but from his work among them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God.

I don't understand what you mean by this. I think it is clear from Paul's writings that he was not given that much respect from the church at large and that large regions rejected his ministry. I think it is also clear that for many genuine Christians either never saw his letters or did not receive them as the word of God.

It was Peter who referred to Paul's writings as "Scripture", but it was done in such a way that it gives me an impression that there was a debate going on about Paul's writings and that many were twisting his words. So we know that some turned away from Paul and rejected him, some taught differently from Paul, some twisted his words, some didn't understand his teachings, and some considered his teachings "scripture". Whereas today only fringe groups and cultic groups would not consider Paul's writings to be authoritative scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

“considered by some to be an apostle in operation” - this may be a key in our considerations. Is it possible that someone could be functioning as an apostle to a group of churches (or an affiliation of churches), and recognized by this group as an apostle of sorts, but not recognized by any other group? Does this make this person any less of an apostle if he is only recognized by the group he ministers among? Under this interpretation maybe Witness Lee was an apostle, at least within the sphere of the Local Church.

Often I have wondered what happened to the rest of the "Twelve," who were scattered by persecution. (Acts 8.1-4) Initially, the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but later all were eventually scattered to the nations, except for the ones martyred in Judea. When I used to work with the college students, I met a believer from India, who talked to me at length how Thomas was the Apostle to their country. I just marveled and worshiped God as I learned that "doubting Thomas" went to India and his fruit still remains to this day.

After Pentecost, the Bible goes completely silent concerning Thomas and he appears to be an apostle only to the people of India. Probably none in Europe would have recognized him as their apostle. When the missionaries of the modern times went to India, they built upon the foundation Thomas had laid. Now, of course, Thomas was one of the Twelve chosen by the Lord, yet he wrote none of scripture. In Judea, he was overpowered by Peter and others in the forefront, yet in India, he operated as an apostle preaching the gospel, establishing churches, cutting straight the truth, appointing elders, etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God. In others words, if they spoke something, to the Christians that looked up to them as apostles, their word was as good as the word of God. It's important to realize that no such equivalent can exist today. The word is established, and Revelation warns against adding to it.

This idea may be supported by I Thess 2.13

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LRC approached and approaches giving Lee this authority. Basically their view was Lee's interpretation of the word is as good as the word--and the corollary, Lee's interpretation is better than anyone's including yours, which precludes your exercising your own interpretation--a stunning limitation!

Now, outside of fringe groups, I don't know of any preeminent Christian teacher in history after the 1st century being afforded that kind of authority. One has to ask oneself, is it legitimate? In my judgment, no way.

I agree that this kind of authority is not legitimate. But I would think that it wasn't legitimate for the original 12 Apostles plus Paul either. How could anyone consider Peter infallible? Look at the council in Acts, no one was treating Paul as the mouthpiece of God. Look at Peter answering to everyone after visiting Cornelius, they were initially treating him as a heretic. From the record I think these ones were viewed in ways similar to leading brothers in the churches today. It is only after their writings were canonized that all Christians came to view their words as scripture.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Okay, I tell you what I mean: As far as New Testament revelation goes, the apostles' word was the highest authority, until the NT scripture was established.

A lot of Christians in that day questioned the apostles? Well, a lot these days question the Bible. That doesn't take away from their authority.

[Cal]

Paul made clear that he had the authority to pass on direct commandments from God. 1 Cor 7:6, 25; 14:37; 2 Cor 8:8; 1 Thes 4:2,11; 2 Thes 3:4, 6, 12; 1 Tim 1:8;

John did, too. 1 John 2:8;

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This idea may be supported by I Thess 2.13

Yes.

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, I tell you what I mean: As far as New Testament revelation goes, the apostles' word was the highest authority, until the NT scripture was established.
A lot of Christians in that day questioned the apostles? Well, a lot these days question the Bible. That doesn't take away from their authority.

So then, if someone speaks the word of God from the NT does it have any less authority than the word spoken by the apostles in the first century?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes.

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Should writing scripture be part of the definition of an apostle?
Matt. 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

And lastly, Paul.

Of these, Peter, John, Matthew and Paul wrote scripture. We have a list of 12 apostles plus Paul and less than a third of them wrote scripture. To me this makes it clear that writing scripture is not a requirement or job description of an apostle.

Further, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not apostles. So writing scripture does not all of a sudden elevate one to apostleship.

Finally, to be fair, half of the New Testament is written by the Apostle Paul, and he wasn’t one of the 12.

Why is the fact that they wrote scripture being used as a criteria for classifying or identifying apostles?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why is the fact that they wrote scripture being used as a criteria for classifying or identifying apostles?

Because the primary job of the early apostles was to establish the faith.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, if someone speaks the word of God from the NT does it have any less authority than the word spoken by the apostles in the first century?

Why not simply ask if scripture has less authority than the early apostles? The answer would be no. Who speaks it or whether someone speaks it or not is irrelevant to its authority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Should writing scripture be part of the definition of an apostle?
Matt. 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

And lastly, Paul.

Of these, Peter, John, Matthew and Paul wrote scripture. We have a list of 12 apostles plus Paul and less than a third of them wrote scripture. To me this makes it clear that writing scripture is not a requirement or job description of an apostle.

Further, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not apostles. So writing scripture does not all of a sudden elevate one to apostleship.

Finally, to be fair, half of the New Testament is written by the Apostle Paul, and he wasn’t one of the 12.


Why is the fact that they wrote scripture being used as a criteria for classifying or identifying apostles?

Did someone say Deja Vu? This is exactly how we started this thread.

I'm debating whether I should be less vocal this go around.

[UntoHim]

ZNP you are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle.

The Holy Spirit chose several of the earliest apostles, along with some others closely related to them, to write what would eventually be accepted as the Canon of the New Testament. We know that there were many writings (gospels, epistles, private letters, etc) produced by many different sources during the first Century after the death & resurrection of our Lord.

At a certain point, the Holy Spirit then chose a number of wise and spiritual men to come and put together what we now know as the New Testament. Among their many considerations, one was surely to identify the authenticity of each gospel, epistle, letter, etc. The fact that some (most) of these writers were apostles is not necessarily connected to the "requirements" of apostleship. Since nobody is writing scripture today (apostle or not) this is essentially a moot point for us in the here and now.

Nobody is being appointed to be an apostle directly from the Lord Jesus anymore (if somebody tells you they are, then run straight for the door). This is why I keep harping upon the idea that our only way to know is to compare and contrast a person's words and actions with those of the original apostles as recorded for us in the New Testament. Any and all "discernment" in this area MUST come from our knowledge and wisdom gained from the Word of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because the primary job of the early apostles was to establish the faith.

Great, now we are getting somewhere. What are the verse references?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

ZNP you are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle.

The Holy Spirit chose several of the earliest apostles, along with some others closely related to them, to write what would eventually be accepted as the Canon of the New Testament.

Good points bro UnToHim.

But did you really have to make up that story about the holy spirit pickin wise and spiritual men to put the canonical books together?

The Catholic church even today consider the church to be a higher authority then the Bible because they chose the books of the Bible. And I don't think they were spirit led wise and spiritual men. They were scoundrels that manhandled the NT manuscripts and changed them. So because of them there are more errors in the NT manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

Besides that, good post ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

ZNP you are looking at this whole thing from the wrong angle... The fact that some (most) of these writers were apostles is not necessarily connected to the "requirements" of apostleship. Since nobody is writing scripture today (apostle or not) this is essentially a moot point for us in the here and now.

I am looking at this from the angle presented by Igzy when he started this thread.

Igzy Post #1 “Our apostle therefore is the Scriptures.”

Igzy Post #5 “Apostles can define divine truth, i.e. write Scripture...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.”

So, my question is on this point. Based on what does Igzy say that Apostles, of any era, were defined by writing scripture. The fact that some Apostles wrote scripture is not evidence that this is a characteristic of “the Apostles” since the majority of them did not write scripture. In fact, Paul was not one of the 12 apostles and he wrote more scripture than all of the 12 apostles combined. It could simply be a coincidence that several of the apostles also wrote scripture and may have nothing to do with the gift of apostles.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good points bro UnToHim.
But did you really have to make up that story about the holy spirit pickin wise and spiritual men to put the canonical books together?
The Catholic church even today consider the church to be a higher authority then the Bible because they chose the books of the Bible. And I don't think they were spirit led wise and spiritual men. They were scoundrels that manhandled the NT manuscripts and changed them. So because of them there are more errors in the NT manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.
Besides that, good post ...

Harold I think you posted this in the wrong thread - I think you meant to place it in the UFO/Alien thread didn't you? If you are going to hammer on the Catholic church you really need to get your facts straight. I mean, do you get ALL your information from those conspiracy kooks? You seem smarter then that. I know you don't want the Bible to be true, heck 99% of the human race doesn't want any of it to be true, but I'm afraid you are going to have to do better then what you have posted here. It's real weak dude...kinda like the stories of the people who claim they have been "abducted" by some green men and their flying saucer

[awareness]

Good come back bro. So how are you going to prove that, "At a certain point, the Holy Spirit then chose a number of wise and spiritual men to come and put together what we now know as the New Testament?" Just who were these wise and spiritual men?

And how do you get around that there are more errors in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because the primary job of the early apostles was to establish the faith.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great, now we are getting somewhere. What are the verse references?

Matt 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee . . . . Then Jesus came to them and said, “. . . . go and make disciples . . . baptizing . . . and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Acts 6:2-4 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” (BTW, very off-topic, but did anyone notice that there was a "Nicolas" among the seven chosen. Just doubting that he was named "bully.")

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

I do not find specific verses (at least not quickly) where it says "the apostles are supposed to establish the faith" but it seems that these, and probably a lot more, pretty well set them as the source of the teachings that were recorded in the scripture. It was the 11 — not every follower at the time — that got the word to go and disciple in Matthew. It was their teaching that was the thing further contemplated in Acts 2. Deacons were sought to fulfill some of the service roles so that the 12 could be devoted to prayer and ministry of the word. And Paul was set apart for a work that God called him to.

When I consider scripture, I see the gospels that provide the core. And the Acts that give us a historical perspective of the spread. Then the various epistles that comment on the practice of the gospel — the living-out of the gospel.

I note that we so often look to Paul for our doctrine. But the core of our doctrine should come from Christ. Paul commented. He observed the ways that the church, and especially the Gentile churches that did not have an OT background, could miss the righteousness required by the gospel. Fighting among each other due to social status, or which teacher they liked best. And a lot of other things. From what I can tell, Paul didn't teach such new things, but instead came back through his letters to correct wanderings from the correct following (disciples) and obeying.

We seem to think that Paul wrote Galatians to tell us to be crucified with Christ. But he actually told us that we have been. And that since we have, we should not be doing the things he is hearing about. Seems the solution was not to get more crucified, but to obey. Sound familiar?

Well it should. Jesus taught a lot. It is recorded in the gospels. We are to become followers of that. And obey it. And when Paul said for others to take his life as a pattern, he wasn't talking about being spiritual, "being crucified," or any of the imagery that he used to spur them on, but about the things that he was spurring them on in — obedience.

And now it is written down for our benefit. Though at times it seems that maybe we could actually need an apostle to come tell us that we have been too focused on the imagery of Paul and less on the command to follow and obey given by Jesus and repeated over and over by Paul, Peter, John, and even James, Jude, and whoever actually wrote Hebrews.

Now for those who have truly been living under a rock, or in a remote rain forest, and have never even heard of Christ or the Bible, they need someone sent to them. And it may take more than a lot of words, even words dictated by the true God, to convince them. They may need to see something that demonstrates that it is more than good words from mortal men. It may take a miracle. And I believe that on occasion that happens today. But not very often in what we call the civilized world. But the seeming reduction or near disappearance of miracles and signs does not say anything about God, but about the need for signs and miracles. Their time may not be over, but it could be close to true. Same for apostles of the kind that we read of in the NT. I can't find evidence that they simply are no more. But I don't really see them either.

We don't know when, but there are things that will pass away. We can presume that it is upon the return of Christ. But that is not stated. Just presumed. Observe the history. Miracles led the children of Israel out of Egypt and into the good land. And there were miracles surrounding the winning of several battles. But then the miracles began to be limited to the fact that the words of the prophets came true. And then even prophetic silence. Yet during that silence, in some ways Israel was in better shape than ever. They had finally gotten the idolatry out of their midst. That was the one thing that God seemed to care about the most.

Now the NT. The church. It gets established. The core teachings of the faith are given and recorded. And we continue on from that. Just like Israel, we have some different camps. But we are still following. There were the Sadducees and Pharisees (not looking at their leadership issues, but at them as representatives of major schools of thought). There were the two major rabbis teaching about many things. (And Jesus took sides on the issue of divorce.) Looks like Christianity. Lee would fault it all because there was not just one rabbi (him) and everyone in the same school of thought. But Jesus really didn't say as much about that as the hypocrisy in many of their teachings.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good come back bro. So how are you going to prove that, "At a certain point, the Holy Spirit then chose a number of wise and spiritual men to come and put together what we now know as the New Testament?" Just who were these wise and spiritual men?

And how do you get around that there are more errors in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament?

And how many of those errors actually result in one version or another saying something truly different? I believe that the answer is "very few" and that even those differences do not change the meaning of the message.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And how do you get around that there are more errors in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament?

We already rebutted that statement.

First of all, there are absolutely no errors regarding the truths of the faith. All the so-called "errors" are minor discrepancies in word tenses and the like. The transmission of documents from the original autographs is more exceedingly accurate than any other documents in man's history.

Also the dates of newly uncovered manuscripts continue to improve. For example, "the Chester Beatty Papyrus II, containing all of Paul's epistles except the Pastorals (I Tim, II Tim, Titus) has recently been dated to the late 1st century." -- P.W. Comfort, The Origin of the Bible

awareness, it is highly unfair to other forum readers for you to continually make distorted and exaggerated claims in order to discredit the scriptures. I really wish you would do some unbiased investigative research into these areas, and not just quote untested internet sources which are designed to simply breed doubts and questionings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

(BTW, very off-topic, but did anyone notice that there was a "Nicolas" among the seven chosen. Just doubting that he was named "bully.")
From what I can tell, Paul didn't teach such new things, but instead came back through his letters to correct wanderings from the correct following (disciples) and obeying.

OBW, nice "jab" about the Nicholas - "bully" comment. You snuck that one in, didn't you?

I have to disagree about Paul's teachings, they did go further than the teaching of the Twelve. Many things he taught were from the resurrected Christ as the Spirit and not the earthly Jesus, even as the Lord told the Twelve in John 16.12-15.

[zeek]

The original premise of this thread is that the Bible is today's apostle. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness [Wikipedia]. One problem with that idea is that how the Bible is interpreted is as important as what the Bible says. To understand the problem, imagine that no one knows how to read. It wouldn't matter how inspired the Bible is if no one can read and understand it. Of course most people do know how to read. But reading also requires understanding. The words of the Bible are ambiguous enough to permit many interpreations. How do we know which if any are correct? If every individual makes his or her own interpretation, we are hardly in an analogous situation to that of churches under the authority of a living apostle.

The other side of the authority issue is the theory of apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic doctrine on this is the most familiar, with the Orthodox Church next. However, as I imagine most of you are aware, theories of apostolic succession abound in the denominations. Witness Lee seems to have claimed that the Lord's recovery apostolic succession was resumed beginning with Count Zinzendorf. Witness Lee did not name a successor so I take it was intention to confer apostolic authority to the "Blended Brothers." If I'm right about this, that would mean that apostolic authority is what is "blended" among them. What do you think?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee seems to have claimed that the Lord's recovery apostolic succession was resumed beginning with Count Zinzendorf. Witness Lee did not name a successor so I take it was intention to confer apostolic authority to the "Blended Brothers." If I'm right about this, that would mean that apostolic authority is what is "blended" among them. What do you think?

I thought WL assigned Luther the first MOTA of recovery apostolic succession?

Ron Kangas, the leading Blended theologian, has stated that he is a "deputized authority" of the body of Christ, which to me is a supposed "apostolic authority" conferred upon him by WL, and which he demonstrated in those recent quarantines.

[zeek]

It's possible WL assigned Luther as the first apostle in a resumed succession. We'll have to search the Life Studies. If that true about RK, then he's claiming apostleship albeit apparently in a "kinder, gentler", more tentative way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's possible WL assigned Luther as the first apostle in a resumed succession. We'll have to search the Life Studies. If that true about RK, then he's claiming apostleship albeit apparently in a "kinder, gentler", more tentative way.

In the book, Vision of the Age, WL listed Luther, Madame Guyon, then Zinzendorf, as if God assigned MOTA's one per century.

I don't see anything "kinder, gentler, or more tentative" about RK or BP. RK traveled to Ecuador to call Isitt the internet "man of death" after he nixed DYL and all Brazil, and TC and the GLA.

Just as Darby's successors became increasingly more exclusive, so have WL's.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Matt 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee . . . . Then Jesus came to them and said, “. . . . go and make disciples . . . baptizing . . . and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Acts 6:2-4 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

So then, if these are the verses that demonstrate an Apostle's function was to confirm the faith, you have to ask do these verses only apply to the 1st century apostles, or are they still applicable today?

Today, do we need some to "teach new converts to obey everything the Lord has commanded"? I would say yes.

Today our version of the Apostle's teaching is the NT. However, there were only 3 of the 12 apostles who wrote the NT. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that the other 9 apostle's taught the same thing as the NT. Is it really that different if someone today teaches the NT? Once again, I would say that this verse is still applicable today.

In Acts 6 we see the apostles devoted themselves to the ministry of the word. Do we really think that this function is no longer applicable. I would say that today we still have those that devote themselves to the ministry of the word.

In Acts 13 it describes Barnabas and Paul being set aside for the work that Jesus called him to. Neither of these two was an eyewitness to the Lord's earthly ministry as one of the disciples. Therefore, the idea that Apostles are limited to those that were with the Lord from the beginning is certainly not applicable. Once again, based on this verse I would say we still have the Lord calling believer and setting believers aside to the work.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

The original premise of this thread is that the Bible is today's apostle. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness [Wikipedia]. One problem with that idea is that how the Bible is interpreted is as important as what the Bible says. To understand the problem, imagine that no one knows how to read. It wouldn't matter how inspired the Bible is if no one can read and understand it. Of course most people do know how to read. But reading also requires understanding. The words of the Bible are ambiguous enough to permit many interpretations. How do we know which if any are correct? If every individual makes his or her own interpretation, we are hardly in an analogous situation to that of churches under the authority of a living apostle.

zeek is getting us to the heart of the matter I believe.

Igzy has proposed that

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

I would put a little finer point this. My take would be that

Our apostle therefore is the apostles' teachings as presented in the New Testament

Maybe this is exactly what Igzy means and if so I'm just spitting hairs.

I must admit, at the start of this thread, I was more on the side of those who say there are (should be) apostles today. On the surface it appears that Ephesians 4:11 ("And He gave some apostles..") is strong evidence for this view. The statement a few verses earlier ("..And He gave gifts to men") helps to bolster this view as well. But I must bow to the realities that we are faced with in the here and now. This is to say nothing of the fact that just about everybody (in our lifetimes) who has ever said they were an apostle, or were called an apostle by others, has completely and utterly failed the test - they have been tried and found to be false. Sorry to say my dear Local Church brothers and sisters (current and former), but Witness Lee definitely falls into the "tried and found to be false" category.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We already rebutted that statement.

First of all, there are absolutely no errors regarding the truths of the faith.

Yes likely true. But even one error calls into question the superstitious presumption of inerrancy of NT scripture.

All the so-called "errors" are minor discrepancies in word tenses and the like.

No there's more to it than that. Example : The Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8 ; The end of Mark, and even the adulterous woman of cast the first stone in the Gospel of John. These are hefty changes, not word tenses and such.

Also the dates of newly uncovered manuscripts continue to improve. For example, "the Chester Beatty Papyrus II, containing all of Paul's epistles except the Pastorals (I Tim, II Tim, Titus) has recently been dated to the late 1st century." -- P.W. Comfort, The Origin of the Bible

Yes, and I believe is why 1 and 11 Timothy and Titus are suspected forgeries.

awareness, it is highly unfair to other forum readers for you to continually make distorted and exaggerated claims in order to discredit the scriptures. I really wish you would do some unbiased investigative research into these areas, and not just quote untested internet sources which are designed to simply breed doubts and questionings.

Most of my learning comes from reading books, not from the web.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I must admit, at the start of this thread, I was more on the side of those who say there are (should be) apostles today. On the surface it appears that Ephesians 4:11 ("And He gave some apostles..") is strong evidence for this view. The statement a few verses earlier ("..And He gave gifts to men") helps to bolster this view as well. But I must bow to the realities that we are faced with in the here and now. This is to say nothing of the fact that just about everybody (in our lifetimes) who has ever said they were an apostle, or were called an apostle by others, has completely and utterly failed the test - they have been tried and found to be false. Sorry to say my dear Local Church brothers and sisters (current and former), but Witness Lee definitely falls into the "tried and found to be false" category.

WL wanted us to believe (as JND before him) that all of Christianity has miserably failed, has become incurably divided, and has become hopelessly degraded, hence both God and man ought to abandon her completely. Was that not his continual message of the last half century?

Hence, God had to raise up another apostle, like unto Paul, who would bring about local testimonies of golden lampstands all one, and all pleasing to the Lord, thus preparing His return. In this way WL wanted us to believe that the same apostolic authority given to Paul, was now given to him. Many of us believed this to varying degrees.

If ..... and I say if ..... the Head of the body were as disgruntled with divisions as we were taught to believe, giving up on Christianity as we were taught to believe, and starting from scratch in the LC's as we were taught to believe, then I do believe the Lord would have to establish a modern day apostle, like He did with Paul. All the signs and wonders of the 1st century must also accompany this "apostle." His life must also be as exemplary as Paul's was.

To me this exactly defines the WL/Blended dilemma. They fiercely believe all of the above. Therefore, they must "doctor up" their image of WL to match that of Paul and the early apostles. Any positive thing must be attributed to WL, and every negative thing must be blamed on others. If you swallow this "Hollywood imagery" of the Recovery, asking no questions nor accepting any facts to the contrary, then you are "living in the land of make believe," as the old Moody Blues song so aptly describes:

Take a look -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5R44dN-L0Q

We're living in the land of make-believe
And trying not to let it show
Maybe in that land of make-believe
Heartaches can turn into joy.

We're breathing in the smoke of high and low
We're taking up a lot of room
Somewhere in the dark and silent night
Our prayer will be heard, make it soon.

So fly little bird
Up into the clear blue sky
And carry the word
Love's the only reason why, why.

Open all the shutters on your windows
Unlock all the locks upon your doors
Brush away the cobwebs from your day-dreams
No secrets come between us any more
Oh say it's true
Only love will see you through
You know what love can do to you.

We're living in a land of make-believe
And trying not to let it show
Maybe in that land of make-believe
Heartaches can turn into joy.

We're breathing in the smoke of high and low
We're taking up a lot of room
Somewhere in the dark and lonely night
Our prayer will be heard, make it soon.

So fly little bird
Up into the clear blue sky
And carry the word
Love's the only reason why, why.

Open all the shutters on your windows
Unlock all the locks upon your doors
Brush away the cobwebs from your day-dreams
No secrets come between us any more
Oh say it's true
Only love will see you through
You know what love can do to you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ron Kangas, the leading Blended theologian, has stated that he is a "deputized authority" of the body of Christ, which to me is a supposed "apostolic authority" conferred upon him by WL, and which he demonstrated in those recent quarantines.

Can we document this about RK?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can we document this about RK?

Yes, I have read it, but not sure where.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, I have read it, but not sure where.

Get back to us then. Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...?? How about Indiana? He surely would document such a claim?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the book, Vision of the Age, WL listed Luther, Madame Guyon, then Zinzendorf, as if God assigned MOTA's one per century.
I don't see anything "kinder, gentler, or more tentative" about RK or BP. RK traveled to Ecuador to call Isitt the internet "man of death" after he nixed DYL and all Brazil, and TC and the GLA.
Just as Darby's successors became increasingly more exclusive, so have WL's.

I was speaking somewhat ironically, Ohio, with an allusion to W.H. Bush. But speaking factually, from what I have read, RK has not flat out stated that he is the apostle of the age as WL did. That's what I meant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was speaking somewhat ironically, Ohio, with an allusion to W.H. Bush.

But speaking factually, from what I have read, RK has not flat out stated that he is the apostle of the age as WL did. That's what I meant.

I understood your allusion to Bush.

To my knowledge, RK has not called himself the "apostle of the age." I think WL only alluded to these many outrageous claims. It was RK and the Blendeds who actually made them about WL.

RK did, however, refer to himself as a deputy authority of the body of Christ in regard to the quarantines.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I understood your allusion to Bush.

To my knowledge, RK has not called himself the "apostle of the age." I think WL only alluded to these many outrageous claims. It was RK and the Blendeds who actually made them about WL.

RK did, however, refer to himself as a deputy authority of the body of Christ in regard to the quarantines.

I recall WL making the claim to be the Apostle of the age explicitly himself. The first time I heard him do so was @ 1975. I was called to a special brothers only meeting on a Saturday afternoon and heard him make the statement on audio tape. I was shocked and my mind reeled so I remember the occasion pretty clearly. I thought he sounded grandiose. I thought it was unChristian to boast that way. I felt like bolting from the church but I had recently married a burning sister who would not have been willing to leave with me so I didn't.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Get back to us then. Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...?? How about Indiana? He surely would document such a claim?

Can you search through those documents at afaithfulword.com from Whistler?

I'm pretty sure it was in there.

I don't have the 'puter skills you have.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I must admit, at the start of this thread, I was more on the side of those who say there are (should be) apostles today. On the surface it appears that Ephesians 4:11 ("And He gave some apostles..") is strong evidence for this view. The statement a few verses earlier ("..And He gave gifts to men") helps to bolster this view as well. But I must bow to the realities that we are faced with in the here and now. This is to say nothing of the fact that just about everybody (in our lifetimes) who has ever said they were an apostle, or were called an apostle by others, has completely and utterly failed the test - they have been tried and found to be false. Sorry to say my dear Local Church brothers and sisters (current and former), but Witness Lee definitely falls into the "tried and found to be false" category.

I have followed this thread from the first post and I don’t think anyone has adequately defined what the gift of apostles is. It seems to me that this is the crucial concept that must be addressed before you can come to any conclusions.

One issue we find is that apostles are also evangelists, they are also shepherds and teachers, and they are also prophets. And in fact I think that should lead us to a useful definition. I would compare an Apostle to a “Pioneer species”. This is a scientific term and I have provided a definition for those of you who are not familiar with this.

Pioneer species are species which colonize previously uncolonized land, usually leading to ecological succession. They are the first organisms to start the chain of events leading to a livable biosphere or ecosystem. Since uncolonized land may have thin, poor quality soils with few nutrients, pioneer species are often hearty plants with adaptations such as long roots, root nodes containing nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and leaves that employ transpiration. Pioneer species will die creating plant litter, and break down as 'leaf mold' after some time, making new soil for secondary succession (see below), and nutrients for small fish and aquatic plants in adjacent bodies of water.

Based on this, I would propose the following definition: Apostles are gifted Christians that can go into land where the gospel has not previously been and plant churches. Often in a situation like that it is necessary for God to assist the work with signs and wonders.

It is also important to understand that when pioneer plants go into an uncolonized land, and this leads to ecological succession, it also usually leads to the pioneer plants becoming marginalized and almost eliminated. So from this standpoint, it does seem to support the original thesis by Igzy based on the book he quoted, that we no longer need apostles.

However, nature does not work this way. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted the surrounding area was wiped out of all life. The first life to return were the pioneer species. Five times in Earth’s history we have had devastating extinction events planet wide, again life bounced back very quickly, in a large part due to the pioneer species. So this also supports the position I and others have taken that the gift of the apostles remains with us. Even if these gifted ones are dormant or marginalized, in the event of a holocaust or communist revolution, or some other event that wipes out the “Christian ecosystem” they will flourish again. All you have to do is read the history of the Christians in China during the last 70 years to realize that we have had legitimate apostles with signs and wonders.

So I do agree that the US today does not need the gift of the apostles, yet at the same time I also believe that these gifted ones are here, present, and will become extremely valuable to the Body of Christ in the event that we do need them.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

Get back to us then. Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...?? How about Indiana? He surely would document such a claim?

Statements such as, You're touching God's government, sure are a strong hint in this direction, no? But yes, such a direct statement as what Ohio referred to, that would make it plain as day...

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

I recall WL making the claim to be the Apostle of the age explicitly himself. The first time I heard him do so was @ 1975. I was called to a special brothers only meeting on a Saturday afternoon and heard him make the statement on audio tape. I was shocked and my mind reeled so I remember the occasion pretty clearly. I thought he sounded grandiose. I thought it was unChristian to boast that way. I felt like bolting from the church but I had recently married a burning sister who would not have been willing to leave with me so I didn't.

Didn't this fall under the "wink, nod" subpoint in the Wise Master Builder outline?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you search through those documents at afaithfulword.com from Whistler?

I'm pretty sure it was in there.

I don't have the 'puter skills you have.

Bro Ohio, are you trying to send me on a wild goose chase? Of course if Kangas ever claimed handed down from Lee deputy authority they wouldn't publicize it on their website ..

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Didn't this fall under the "wink, nod" subpoint in the Wise Master Builder outline?

No this was a special meeting occasioned by I know not what. Some kind of perceived challenge to Lee's leadership I suspect. It was an audio tape before he started putting out videos. I do not have word for word recall of the messae or a transcript though, so I can only assert that this is how I remember it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW, nice "jab" about the Nicholas - "bully" comment. You snuck that one in, didn't you?

I have to disagree about Paul's teachings, they did go further than the teaching of the Twelve. Many things he taught were from the resurrected Christ as the Spirit and not the earthly Jesus, even as the Lord told the Twelve in John 16.12-15.

First, it was not intended as a jab, although I did recall that there was some question raised by some of the non-clergy/laity thinking that maybe this particular Nicolas was somehow the source of the name. I always considered that to be nothing more than speculation. But the idea that we took the reading of the nuances of the words that could make up the name and found the ones that created something that could be made hay of in teaching something that seems special rather than allowing for the more likely meanings is not particularly new. And not a lot different than saying that "economy" simply equals "dispensing." (And only dispensing.)

I would agree that Paul's teachings were of a different type than those of the 12. But I'm not sure that his goal was really any different than theirs. The more I read Paul, the more I see him directing his charges to imitate Christ, and to obey. Imitate Christ in so many ways. Not squabbling over social status, or condemning those who believe differently with respect to certain things, like meat offered to idols, or observing days. These are not an exclusive list, but examples.

And I think that if you read Paul a little more broadly (meaning read the whole passage in which he says some of those interesting and spiritual things) you may find that he seldom says to do spiritual things, or to work on spiritual things, but to note that there are spiritual realities that allow (and even command) that you obey with respect to whatever it is that Paul is talking about. So Paul does give us a brilliant painting of the spiritual realities, but they are not for the purpose of being spiritual as much as they are for the purpose of being the righteous, obedient follower that Jesus commanded.

In other words, the gospels really are the core. They are the heart of the divine revelation. We may get a better look behind the curtain with Paul's writings, but all of it is to direct us back to following and obeying. Not to falling all over "spiritual" activities. And we have seen through the value of those overly-adjectivized phrases that the LRC shouts "hallelujah!" about so much. But have we considered that running around trying to determine whether we are living the "I've been crucified with Christ" life enough to finally do that thing that Jesus (and also Paul) commanded is just as bad. Paul didn't say go get more crucified. He said we are, so we should do.

Doesn't look as different from the gospels when that is your view. And more and more I am unable to see Paul as telling us so much unique stuff as much as I see him commenting on the real core of the New Testament. And that is the gospels.

And another LRC error. They are so sure that John is the really important gospel. But if that is true, why did God have the others written first, and seemingly three passes at much of the same things, then later add that different gospel by John? Maybe the content of the other three is three times more important than the one. (Probably not that simple.) Or the three are the core, but the one is also needed. And if you are going to focus on only part of it, the weight of the three may just indicate relative importance in some ways. You can be obedient without getting into so much of the spirituality. But if you try to be spiritual without the obedience, you are just a sham.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, if these are the verses that demonstrate an Apostle's function was to confirm the faith, you have to ask do these verses only apply to the 1st century apostles, or are they still applicable today?

Today, do we need some to "teach new converts to obey everything the Lord has commanded"? I would say yes.

Today our version of the Apostle's teaching is the NT. However, there were only 3 of the 12 apostles who wrote the NT. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that the other 9 apostle's taught the same thing as the NT. Is it really that different if someone today teaches the NT? Once again, I would say that this verse is still applicable today.

In Acts 6 we see the apostles devoted themselves to the ministry of the word. Do we really think that this function is no longer applicable. I would say that today we still have those that devote themselves to the ministry of the word.

In Acts 13 it describes Barnabas and Paul being set aside for the work that Jesus called him to. Neither of these two was an eyewitness to the Lord's earthly ministry as one of the disciples. Therefore, the idea that Apostles are limited to those that were with the Lord from the beginning is certainly not applicable. Once again, based on this verse I would say we still have the Lord calling believer and setting believers aside to the work.

I agree in principle. Of course, I think I indicated that I do not consider these to be some kind of definitive verses, but ones that paint a picture. And for me, the picture they paint has a context and it includes looking at the whole of the OT and NT history, seeing that Jesus did not command everyone to go and disciple, etc.

But when you mention that there are people today who devote themselves to prayer and teaching the word, that is true of many people that I would not assert as being apostles at much of any level. Clearly teachers, but not apostles. The question of significance is whether there is some kind of special office/gift/position (or whatever) that is a kind of apostle that we should be keen to keep in front of us, or rather something much more general. If it is something much more general, then the earlier comments that I and others have made indicating that the real discernment is in the teachings and in the character of the person may still be all you need.

And if it is so general, then what is the significance of saying it is an apostle rather than simply a teacher? Are gaining anything from figuring out who is an apostle? Or are we simply doing mental gymnastics and the truth is that we are going to accept the good teachings and reject the bad either way and nothing will change except for our "reverence" toward any so-called "apostle." If that is all we accomplish, then I would probably rather not have a basis for thinking that certain ones may be apostles because that would simply be an invitation for a new sect and a personality cult.

But if there really are these important apostles today, then it must not mean much of anything because no one is really doing much to the culture and the church. And if it doesn't really mean much, then it must mean that God is being stymied in this area. And since God is not stymied, I tend to end out right back in the same place — apostles in this era, even if they exist, are not about being identified, but about their service. Let's leave it that way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, are you trying to send me on a wild goose chase? Of course if Kangas ever claimed handed down from Lee deputy authority they wouldn't publicize it on their website ..

No, just trying to help your friend Zeek. I did an advanced google search on their website, but did not find that comment by RK.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

apostles in this era, even if they exist, are not about being identified, but about their service. Let's leave it that way.

Hey, just for fun let's list names of possible apostles today.

How about :

Billy Graham. Is/was he an apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter either way?

What about Rick Warren, of Purpose Drive Life fame? Apostle, yes or no? Does it matter either way?

What about Jerry Falwell? Was he an apostle or not? Yes or no? Did it matter either way?

What about Pat Robertson? Apostle, yes or no? Does it make a difference either way?

What about John Hagee? Apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter which it is?

What about Joyce Meyers? An apostle like some women that traveled with Paul? Yes or no? Does it make a difference one way or the other?

Anyone else anyone would like to ponder if they were a modern day apostle? The list of possibilities is long.

Was Witness Lee an apostle? Extract the authority element, does it really matter either way?

As much as I've enjoyed this discussion about apostles, I have to say, this concern about modern day apostles is superfluous to the max. If it is so that, there are modern day apostles, it's God's concern, workings, and business. Not ours. If they exist, should we grant special authority to them? Is that the point of discovering modern day apostles? To accept, submit too, and follow and obey a man?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, just for fun let's list names of possible apostles today.

How about :

1. Billy Graham. Is/was he an apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter either way?
   
2. What about Rick Warren, of Purpose Drive Life fame? Apostle, yes or no? Does it matter either way?
   
3. What about Jerry Falwell? Was he an apostle or not? Yes or no? Did it matter either way?
   
4. What about Pat Robertson? Apostle, yes or no? Does it make a difference either way?
   
5. What about John Hagee? Apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter which it is?
   
6. What about Joyce Meyers? An apostle like some women that traveled with Paul? Yes or no? Does it make a difference one way or the other?
   
7. Anyone else anyone would like to ponder if they were a modern day apostle? The list of possibilities is long.
   
8. Was Witness Lee an apostle? Extract the authority element, does it really matter either way?

All of the above?

[UntoHim]

As far as I'm aware, none of these people have claimed to be an apostle, nor has anyone claimed that they are an apostle...except of course for Witness Lee. And how convenient is this since Witness Lee is one of the major concerns of this forum!

Let's keep our eye on the ball guys.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, just for fun let's list names of possible apostles today.

How about :

. . . .

Only one has what I would consider reasonable stature. And he would scoff at the suggestion. So I will stick with Unto's line. They ain't claiming it and I won't saddle any of them with it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And another LRC error. They are so sure that John is the really important gospel. But if that is true, why did God have the others written first, and seemingly three passes at much of the same things, then later add that different gospel by John? Maybe the content of the other three is three times more important than the one. (Probably not that simple.) Or the three are the core, but the one is also needed. And if you are going to focus on only part of it, the weight of the three may just indicate relative importance in some ways. You can be obedient without getting into so much of the spirituality. But if you try to be spiritual without the obedience, you are just a sham.

It's not just the LRC that sometimes views the Gospel of John uniquely, but that should not in any way diminish the importance of the other three. Each gospel has its own viewpoint, as inspired by the Spirit. I see no LRC error on this point, in fact, the LSM might have been faulted for diminishing the value of John in favor of their more legalistic teachings on the "kingdom" found in Matthew.

Dr. Philip Comfort, formerly a minister in the Church in Columbus at its inception, was passionate about the gospel of John, his favorite book of the Bible. He eventually departed from the LRC after he was badly abused by TC of Cleveland, whose chief rebuke was that PC was "too theoretical." Amazingly, no one else, including all the GLA leaders, felt this way about PC and his ministry until the "wise seer" TC was able to point this out.

I do believe the gospel of John is unique because of the time it was written. Instead of being written by a young teenage John, an eye-witness of all these events from the earliest days of Jesus' ministry, it was written by an aging and mature John, who had benefited from decades of serving the Lord in the churches.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do believe the gospel of John is unique because of the time it was written. Instead of being written by a young teenage John, an eye-witness of all these events from the earliest days of Jesus' ministry, it was written by an aging and mature John, who had benefited from decades of serving the Lord in the churches.

But Act 4:13 says that John was illiterate. So likely the Gospel of John was written by John's followers, in the school of John in Ephesus. But we don't know that for sure, cuz the gospel of John was written anonymously.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Act 4:13 says that John was illiterate. So likely the Gospel of John was written by John's followers, in the school of John in Ephesus. But we don't know that for sure, cuz the gospel of John was written anonymously.

No it doesn't.

You are twisting words to discredit the scriptures.

Go back and study what it really says.

[UntoHim]

Acts 4:13 does not say John could not read or write, only that he spoke as if he had no formal education and lacked the eloquence of the leaders and elders (probably highly educated Rabbis, etc) of whom he was addressing. But even if he could not write he could have dictated to a third party. Either way it does not change the message and truth of the Gospel.

Stop trying to change the subject Harold.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Act 4:13 says that John was illiterate. So likely the Gospel of John was written by John's followers, in the school of John in Ephesus. But we don't know that for sure, cuz the gospel of John was written anonymously.

The authorship of John has always been known by the church.

Noted historian Phillip Schaff says, "The external proof of the Johannean authorship is as strong, yea stronger than that of the genuineness of any classical writer of antiquity, and goes up to the very beginning of the second century, within hailing distance of the living John. It includes Catholic writers, heretics, and heathen enemies."

Is your goal here to discredit the scriptures an attempt to live out your signature line -- "there's a serpent in every paradise?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Acts 4:13 does not say John could not read or write, only that he spoke as if he had no formal education and lacked the eloquence of the leaders and elders (probably highly educated Rabbis, etc) of whom he was addressing. But even if he could not write he could have dictated to a third party. Either way it does not change the message and truth of the Gospel.
Stop trying to change the subject Harold.

Yes, of course, the truth is in the pudding.
But if the subject continues on something wrong, isn't that even more off subject?

Strong :
G62
ἀγράμματος
agrammatos
ag-ram-mat-os
From G1 (as negative particle) and G1121; unlettered, that is, illiterate: - unlearned.

Sorry for the interruption. Continue on ....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, of course, the truth is in the pudding.

But if the subject continues on something wrong, isn't that even more off subject?

Strong :
G62
ἀγράμματος
agrammatos
ag-ram-mat-os
From G1 (as negative particle) and G1121; unlettered, that is, illiterate: - unlearned.

Sorry for the interruption. Continue on ....

so you're saying the gospel of john may have been written in the same way sports autobiographies are?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, of course, the truth is in the pudding.

But if the subject continues on something wrong, isn't that even more off subject?

Strong :
G62
ἀγράμματος
agrammatos
ag-ram-mat-os
From G1 (as negative particle) and G1121; unlettered, that is, illiterate: - unlearned.

The word "agrammatos" (Acts 4.13) means unlearned, illiterate, unlettered. This demeaning word was spoken by the Sanhedrin, not following some scholastic aptitude test for reading proficiency, but to discredit Peter and John's message about the risen Savior. From the context, the meaning is "unlettered," indicating they were uneducated the letters of the law. The Jews were extremely proud of their "letter-learning."

This is also confirmed by the other descriptor assigned to Peter and John in 4.13. The Jewish leaders called them "unlearned" which is the greek word "idiotes" from where we get the derogatory "idiots." This word means uneducated, untrained, unskilled, hence a "layman," one who is not a trained or skilled "professional."

Apparently some in Corinth also said the Apostle Paul was an "idiot" in speech, labeling him an uneducated or untrained speaker (II Cor 11.6) like Peter and John.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

so you're saying the gospel of john may have been written in the same way sports autobiographies are?

They employed Holy "Ghost writers."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They employed Holy "Ghost writers."

So after watching James, Peter and Paul get imprisoned and martyred,and after seeing John boiled in oil and exciled, someone agreed to "ghost" write a book of the Bible? Is this guy now the patron saint of ghost writers?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So after watching James, Peter and Paul get imprisoned and martyred, and after seeing John boiled in oil and exiled, someone agreed to "ghost" write a book of the Bible?

Is this guy now the patron saint of ghost writers?

Very funny.

When I hear so many liberals today promote the ideas of the skeptics and the atheists, I remember the dialog between Abraham and the rich man in Luke 16.

The rich man argued, "No, father Abraham, if only someone from the dead would go to my five brothers, then they will repent."

But Abraham said to him, "if they refuse to hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No it doesn't.
You are twisting words to discredit the scriptures

Yeah right. I'm using scripture to discredit scripture.

For someone that believes scripture is Gods' word, you sure have trouble with it when it says something beyond your presumptions and traditions.

[Cal]

Since we've done such a good job of deciding whether there are still apostles today, (that's a joke, son), why don't we move on to the subject of what kind of authority they have today and how is it enforced?

1. If there are apostles, who should follow them?
   
2. How much should we encourage others to follow them?
   
3. If "follow" the wrong word, should we use some other term, like "give ear to," etc?
   
4. If someone doesn't follow them, are they outside the move of God?
   
5. What should be our attitude about "non-heeders?"
   
6. And, finally, do any of the above considerations make vivid how warped movements are which insist their favorite son is the one everyone should follow?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah right. I'm using scripture to discredit scripture.
For someone that believes scripture is Gods' word, you sure have trouble with it when it says something beyond your presumptions and traditions.

This is not a matter of getting my presumptions and traditions offended. This is a matter of understanding what the original text actually said. When you are standing before the Jewish Sanhedrin, being "illiterate" does not mean you cannot write your own name, it means you cannot decipher the letter of the law.

The Bible is filled with sayings and idioms which do not translate word for word outside of their context.

Btw, the English language is the same way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Since we've done such a good job of deciding whether there are still apostles today, (that's a joke, son), why don't we move on to the subject of what kind of authority they have today and how is it enforced?

1. If there are apostles, who should follow them?
2. How much should we encourage others to follow them?
3. If "follow" the wrong word, should we use some other term, like "give ear to," etc?
4. If someone doesn't follow them, are they outside the move of God?
5. What should be our attitude about "non-heeders?"
6. And, finally, do any of the above considerations make vivid how warped movements are which insist their favorite son is the one everyone should follow?

If I could make some observations ...

Some of these same points were debated amongst the Corinthians, and Paul concluded "all are yours." When it comes to uplifting one above another, whether they be apostles or co-workers or full-timers, all are nothing, and Christ is all in all.

Most of these points, obviously taken from the LC context, assume there is only one apostle, or group of blendeds speaking as "one." Hence, these points, unfortunately, might be relevant to them. For example, the entire conflict which resulted in the quarantine of TC, could have boiled down to just one question, "who is your apostle?"

This question then translates into -- Who must we follow? Who must we heed? How do we judge those who disobey?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah right. I'm using scripture to discredit scripture.

For someone that believes scripture is Gods' word, you sure have trouble with it when it says something beyond your presumptions and traditions.

I don't get the point. It wasn't John that said he was illiterate, it was someone who was insulting him saying it. Second, it was said when John was a teenager, and he wrote the gospel when he was the "aged" apostle. 50 years is a long time to learn how to write, especially for someone who had given their life to "the ministry of the word" Acts 6.

So does the Bible really say that John the aged apostle was unable to write? No. Does it even say that the Sanhedrin and Pharisees felt he was unable to write at the time that the gospel of John was written? No. You are constructing an argument out of tissue paper.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But Abraham said to him, "if they refuse to hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead."

Of course they believed someone could rise from the dead. It was common Greek/Roman mythology in widespread currency in those days. It would have been easy for anyone to believe in such things. They would have took to it like the realization that ice is water.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Since we've done such a good job of deciding whether there are still apostles today, (that's a joke, son), why don't we move on to the subject of what kind of authority they have today and how is it enforced?

1. If there are apostles, who should follow them?
   
2. How much should we encourage others to follow them?
   
3. If "follow" the wrong word, should we use some other term, like "give ear to," etc?
   
4. If someone doesn't follow them, are they outside the move of God?
   
5. What should be our attitude about "non-heeders?"
   
6. And, finally, do any of the above considerations make vivid how warped movements are which insist their favorite son is the one everyone should follow?

I am leaning towards my "pioneer plant" hypothesis and a definition of Apostle as one that brings the gospel and churches to a region previously not evangelized.

With that in mind,

1. For the most part today we would not see Apostles operating since most of the inhabited earth has been evangelized. (To me, saying that we don't have apostles today is not equivalent to saying that we don't have the gift of apostles in the same way that pioneer plants can still be found even though they are marginalized at best).

2. If you were in a land that did not have the gospel, perhaps there is a place like that today. If so I would encourage the raising up of churches by an apostle as a positive thing. However, in the US I would not encourage anyone to follow an "apostle".

3. Once again, in the US I would not encourage others to "give ear" to someone who labels themself as "the apostle".

4. I'll let God judge who is outside the move of God. However, the idea that you have to label yourself an apostle does, to me, strongly suggest you are outside of the realm of other fundamental christians in this country.

5. I don't know who you are referring to by "non heeders".

6. I think my illustration of a pioneer plant explains how and why God would give a gift that was very important at the beginning of this age and since then has almost disappeared from view, and yet still exists.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Very funny.

When I hear so many liberals today promote the ideas of the skeptics and the atheists, I remember the dialog between Abraham and the rich man in Luke 16.

The rich man argued, "No, father Abraham, if only someone from the dead would go to my five brothers, then they will repent."

But Abraham said to him, "if they refuse to hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead."

Today rising from the dead is very common. There is a book about a little kid that died and came back and told his parents and friends some of the things he learned while dead. In fact the experience is so common that they are currently experimenting in operating rooms by putting signs on the wall that only someone who was looking down from the ceiling would be able to see.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The authorship of John has always been known by the church.

Noted historian Phillip Schaff says, "The external proof of the Johannean authorship is as strong, yea stronger than that of the genuineness of any classical writer of antiquity, and goes up to the very beginning of the second century, within hailing distance of the living John. It includes Catholic writers, heretics, and heathen enemies."

You sound like sister Steward, and her "Received Text" KJV only position.

So my answer to you is the same answer I gave to her : Without autographed copies of the gospels, no one knows for certain, and can't know. And that goes for me and you, and Phillip Schaff.

Is your goal here to discredit the scriptures an attempt to live out your signature line -- "there's a serpent in every paradise?"

I confess I never connected those dots. But yes, there's a serpent in every paradise.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course they believed someone could rise from the dead. It was common Greek/Roman mythology in widespread currency in those days. It would have been easy for anyone to believe in such things. They would have took to it like the realization that ice is water.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Today rising from the dead is very common. There is a book about a little kid that died and came back and told his parents and friends some of the things he learned while dead. In fact the experience is so common that they are currently experimenting in operating rooms by putting signs on the wall that only someone who was looking down from the ceiling would be able to see.

So all that mythology was after all true?

On a more "serious" note, "rising from the dead" means that you once were "among the dead," as the rich man was, and then you rose up. That's how I understand it. The Lord went to Hades, past its gates, went among the dead, preached to them good news, and then rose from among the dead. I'm not quite sure that just rising to the ceiling, as the young boy was, and then getting resuscitated, actually qualifies. If one has not yet gone thru the "gates of hades," has he really risen "from the dead" as Abraham has said?

But ..... since I have no experience in this area, I can only go by what others have said.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So all that mythology was after all true?

On a more "serious" note, "rising from the dead" means that you once were "among the dead," as the rich man was, and then you rose up. That's how I understand it. The Lord went to Hades, past its gates, went among the dead, preached to them good news, and then rose from among the dead. I'm not quite sure that just rising to the ceiling, as the young boy was, and then getting resuscitated, actually qualifies. If one has not yet gone thru the "gates of hades," has he really risen "from the dead" as Abraham has said?

But ..... since I have no experience in this area, I can only go by what others have said.

Well the little boys experience was much more than "rising to the ceiling". For one he met his sister that he was unaware he had (she was a miscarriage).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You sound like sister Steward, and her "Received Text" KJV only position.

So my answer to you is the same answer I gave to her : Without autographed copies of the gospels, no one knows for certain, and can't know. And that goes for me and you, and Phillip Schaff.

I sound nothing like Steward. How insulting!

.

If the apostle John were here to autograph his gospel, you would still be suspicious.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This question then translates into -- Who must we follow? Who must we heed? How do we judge those who disobey?

And my view is these questions themselves are flawed. Because to answer them we must be able to know and agree upon without question who these special apostles are, and I don't think we can.

We can, however, know the speaking of the Spirit. I think that someone could make the case that, for example, Rick Warren is an apostle with a word for the entire Body of Christ. But making that an "official" (read "required") position opens big cans of worms.

I think we do well enough to hear the speaking of the Spirit through brother Warren. If you hear Him, heed his voice. If you don't, move on. But it seems to me that outward cheerleading let alone pressure to follow a particular man is not only dangerous, it is unnecessary. If you hear the Lord speaking in a brother's teaching, by all means, cheerlead his teaching. But don't cheerlead him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well the little boys experience was much more than "rising to the ceiling". For one he met his sister that he was unaware he had (she was a miscarriage).

Fascinating.

Then God honors life after conception? Then abortion is murder.

Think about how many murderers we now have in politics, medicine, and the courts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And my view is these questions themselves are flawed. Because to answer them we must be able to know and agree upon without question who these special apostles are, and I don't think we can.

We can, however, know the speaking of the Spirit. I think that someone could make the case that, for example, Rick Warren is an apostle with a word for the entire Body of Christ. But making that an "official" (read "required") position opens big cans of worms.

I think we do well enough to hear the speaking of the Spirit through brother Warren. If you hear Him, heed his voice. If you don't, move on. But it seems to me that outward cheerleading let alone pressure to follow a particular man is not only dangerous, it is unnecessary. If you hear the Lord speaking in a brother's teaching, by all means, cheerlead his teaching. But don't cheerlead him.

Good points. I agree.

The calling and commissioning of the genuine apostles by the Head relates more to the anointing upon these brothers, and the spiritual power they have over the forces of darkness, than any kind of assumed or presumed authority over other brothers.

WL gave endless messages concerning the "authority was by the growth in life." He used Aaron's rod that budded as an example of this authority based on life, assuming his own was the highest of all. When push came to shove, however, he would use his self-assumed authority to crush the internal critics, and the legal system to crush his external opposers. Quite different from the authority we see with the earliest Apostles.

Concerning your opening statement -- "we must be able to know and agree upon without question who these special apostles are, and I don't think we can," -- this demand sets the bar too high. The early church was never in agreement concerning Paul. Also, it was not too long before Jerusalem placed James above the other apostles.

[zeek]

The authorship of John has always been known by the church.

How did they always know it?

Noted historian Phillip Schaff says, "The external proof of the Johannean authorship is as strong, yea stronger than that of the genuineness of any classical writer of antiquity, and goes up to the very beginning of the second century, within hailing distance of the living John. It includes Catholic writers, heretics, and heathen enemies."

Sadly, Dr. Schaff died 118 years ago and consequently didn't have the benefit to the research that has been done since his time. Be that as it may, what external proof is Mr. Schaff referring to? How strong is the genuineness of any classical writers of antiquity? What did those Catholics, heretics and heathen say that we should believe them?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerning your opening statement -- "we must be able to know and agree upon without question who these special apostles are, and I don't think we can," -- this demand sets the bar too high. The early church was never in agreement concerning Paul. Also, it was not too long before Jerusalem placed James above the other apostles.

I meant that in order to have the kind of order and conformity to the apostle the LRC envisioned there would have to be much more agreement on who the apostle is and therefore much more reasonable evidence.

That is, to expect everyone to follow one man the evidence has to be there that would reasonably compel everyone to do so. The LRC never had that for Lee.

They just convinced themselves they did and expected everyone to join in their decision. That works for a handful of fanatics, but to reasonably expect the entire Body of Christ to even consider following one man you have to have a whole lot more evidence than even we gave Lee credit for having.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How did they always know it?

How do you know who wrote the Gettysburg Address?

Sadly, Dr. Schaff died 118 years ago and consequently didn't have the benefit to the research that has been done since his time. Be that as it may, what external proof is Mr. Schaff referring to? How strong is the genuineness of any classical writers of antiquity? What did those Catholics, heretics and heathen say that we should believe them?

I only typed his opening sentence. This section in his book is too long for me to type. (See Vol. 1, pages 701-708 for external evidences, and pp. 709-714 for internal evidences.)

You say Schaff died 118 years ago, yet he did address many modern criticisms, probably many more than you think. Schaff's next section is #84 "Critical Review of the Johannean Problem." pp. 715-724.

His subtitles are:

• The Problem Stated
• The Assaults on the Fourth Gospel
• The Defense of the Fourth Gospel
• The Difficulties of the Anti-Johannean Theory

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I meant that in order to have the kind of order and conformity to the apostle the LRC envisioned there would have to be much more agreement on who the apostle is and therefore much more reasonable evidence.

That is, to expect everyone to follow one man the evidence has to be there that would reasonably compel everyone to do so. The LRC never had that for Lee.

They just convinced themselves they did and expected everyone to join in their decision. That works for a handful of fanatics, but to reasonably expect the entire Body of Christ to even consider following one man you have to have a whole lot more evidence than even we gave Lee credit for having.

This became a major flaw in the MOTA paradigm. Since Paul never had universal agreement concerning his singular apostleship as some MOTA, how in the world could we expect to have others believe WL was that.

To be honest, starting in the mid-70's, I did believe that WL would be recognized as a universal MOTA once the litigation on the books G-M and MB was completed. After the books were dealt with in the mid 80's, I went thru a period of time waiting on the Lord to fulfill my expectations. I assumed the "new way" would expedite the Lord's anointing.

I guess i was wrong about that one. :frown:

[Cal]

We were all young, naive and, most importantly, ignorant, back then.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We were all young, naive and, most importantly, ignorant, back then.

Yes we were. That's why I decided to do my best not to be ignorant like that anymore. Even if it puts me at odds with my Christian brothers and sisters, which is pretty common now.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This became a major flaw in the MOTA paradigm. Since Paul never had universal agreement concerning his singular apostleship as some MOTA, how in the world could we expect to have others believe WL was that.

This is why I think the MOTA teaching and others like it are not intended to get everyone on board, but are in fact intended to give the LRC participants excuses for ignoring and separating themselves from the rest of the Body of Christ.

If they concoct some non-negotiable principle which the rest of the Body fails to live up to (MOTA, VOTA, local ground, gospel of the kingdom, God's economy, whatever), then they can excuse themselves from the inconvenient business of having to maintain fellowship with the rest of the Body.

This is basically what they are doing. It's all just an excuse for playing in their own comfortable little sandbox, while pretending it's the only sandbox around.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We were all young, naive and, most importantly, ignorant, back then.

We trusted in people who actually did little to earn that trust.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes we were. That's why I decided to do my best not to be ignorant like that anymore. Even if it puts me at odds with my Christian brothers and sisters, which is pretty common now.

It's one thing to no longer trust contemporary leaders who have never earned that trust, but it's another thing to no longer trust those who have been proven over the span of 2,000 years.

[zeek]

How do you know who wrote the Gettysburg Address?

It's well documented with multiple sources of attestation.

Here are a few more sources on the authorship of the Gospel of John:

Encyclopedia Britanica says:


Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by John, “the beloved disciple” of Jesus, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John and based his writing on John’s teachings and testimonies. Moreover, the facts that several episodes in the life of Jesus are recounted out of sequence with the Synoptics and the final chapter appears to be a later addition suggest that the text may be a composite. The Gospel’s place and date of composition are also uncertain; many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, in about ad 100 for the purpose of communicating the truths about Christ to Christians of Hellenistic background.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's lengthy article on the subject supports the traditional view. It's linked here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm#III

The author does make the following admission however:

"The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church. Since David Friedrich Strauss and Ferdinand Christian Baur this denial has been postulated in advance in most of the critical inquiries into the Gospels and the life of Jesus. Influenced by this prevailing tendency, Alfred Loisy also reached the point where he openly denied the historicity of the Fourth Gospel; in his opinion the author desired, not to write a history, but to clothe in symbolical garb his religious ideas and theological speculations."

Adolf von Harnack (7 May 1851–10 June 1930), was a German theologian and prominent church historian stated the following

"In particular, the fourth Gospel, which does not emanate or profess to emanate from the apostle John, cannot be taken as an historical authority in the ordinary meaning of the word. The author of it acted with sovereign freedom, transposed events and put them in a strange light, drew up the discourses himself, and illustrated 22 great thoughts by imaginary situations. Although, his work is not altogether devoid of a real, if scarcely recognizable, traditional element, it can hardly make any claim to be considered an authority for Jesus’ history; only little of what he says can be accepted, and that little with caution. On the other hand, it is an authority of the first rank for answering the question, What vivid views of Jesus’ person, what kind of light and warmth, did the Gospel disengage?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...te_note-JInt-3

Marilyn Mellowes http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...eligion/jesus/

"Tradition has credited John, the son of Zebedee and an apostle of Jesus, with the authorship of the fourth gospel. Most scholars dispute this notion; some speculate that the work was actually produced by a group of early Christians somewhat isolated from other early Christian communities. Tradition also places its composition in or near Ephesus, although lower Syria or Lebanon are more likely locations. The most likely time for the completion of this gospel is between 90 and 110 CE."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is why I think the MOTA teaching and others like it are not intended to get everyone on board, but are in fact intended to give the LRC participants excuses for ignoring and separating themselves from the rest of the Body of Christ.

If they concoct some non-negotiable principle which the rest of the Body fails to live up to (MOTA, VOTA, local ground, gospel of the kingdom, God's economy, whatever), then they can excuse themselves from the inconvenient business of having to maintain fellowship with the rest of the Body.

This is basically what they are doing. It's all just an excuse for playing in their own comfortable little sandbox, while pretending it's the only sandbox around.

This is a much better focus, is it a matter of the faith to receive some brother as "MOTA" or "The Apostle", etc. If I refuse to receive Paul, or Peter, Or James or WL as "MOTA" is that a basis to cut off fellowship? Is this a matter of the faith?

To me that is clear for all genuine Christians that this is not a matter of the faith and it is not a basis to be divisive. If a church doesn't want to receive LSM publications is that a basis to cut them off? Absolutely not. It is not a matter of the faith.

If a church does not want to attend LSM trainings is that a basis to cut them off? Absolutely not, it is not a matter of the faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is a much better focus, is it a matter of the faith to receive some brother as "MOTA" or "The Apostle", etc. If I refuse to receive Paul, or Peter, Or James or WL as "MOTA" is that a basis to cut off fellowship? Is this a matter of the faith?

To me that is clear for all genuine Christians that this is not a matter of the faith and it is not a basis to be divisive. If a church doesn't want to receive LSM publications is that a basis to cut them off? Absolutely not. It is not a matter of the faith.

If a church does not want to attend LSM trainings is that a basis to cut them off? Absolutely not, it is not a matter of the faith.

Good point. This is exactly what happened to Mansfield, Columbus, and Toronto.

Paul was an apostle to the uncircumcision, the nations, those that Jews in Jerusalem did not even want to hear the good news. Hence, the early church was fine with this arrangement.

Paul never forced the Jewish believers to acknowledge his apostleship. Neither did he prevent Peter from coming to the Gentile lands.

So for LSM to demand that TC or DYL or anybody else to receive WL and his teachings exclusively is for them to become the most divisive of all Christians.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good point. This is exactly what happened to Mansfield, Columbus, and Toronto.

Paul was an apostle to the uncircumcision, the nations, those that Jews in Jerusalem did not even want to hear the good news. Hence, the early church was fine with this arrangement.

Paul never forced the Jewish believers to acknowledge his apostleship. Neither did he prevent Peter from coming to the Gentile lands.

So for LSM to demand that TC or DYL or anybody else to receive WL and his teachings exclusively is for them to become the most divisive of all Christians.

Yet isn't this how Anaheim actually views the split? It's east/west, right/left, circumcision/uncircumcision.

You said, "Paul never forced the Jewish believers to acknowledge his apostleship." Well, as far as Anaheim is concerned, they never *forced* anyone to accept their authority, either. But as long as the Midwest does not accept their authority, they will remain...separate. Like the separation between Jerusalem and Paul's ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Yet isn't this how Anaheim actually views the split? It's east/west, right/left, circumcision/uncircumcision.
You said, "Paul never forced the Jewish believers to acknowledge his apostleship." Well, as far as Anaheim is concerned, they never *forced* anyone to accept their authority, either. But as long as the Midwest does not accept their authority, they will remain...separate. Like the separation between Jerusalem and Paul's ministry.

Say what you want, the quarantine letter of TC was the BBs forcing TC to accept the "apostolic authority" of LSM.

In that letter their primary accusation was accusing TC of "separating themselves from the vast majority of the churches, saints, leading brothers, and coworkers throughout the whole earth who are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry”

In essence he and the churches associated with TC were excommunicated because they were not "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WN and WL", of course it is LSM and the BBs that define what exactly that means.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well the little boys experience was much more than "rising to the ceiling". For one he met his sister that he was unaware he had (she was a miscarriage).

I realize that there are a lot who think there is something to all of this near-death experience stuff. They are busy writing book after book about it.

And when they happen to people in the Far East, their stories look like their afterlife beliefs. It tends to suggest that we create things in our heads based on what we believe about life, death, and the thought that we could be dying.

But why should God now actually be sending a bunch of people back from the dead to tell us these fantastic stories (almost exclusively to those who already believe anyway) but wouldn't send someone back to warn the family of the rich man?

It doesn't add up.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Say what you want, the quarantine letter of TC was the BBs forcing TC to accept the "apostolic authority" of LSM.

In that letter their primary accusation was accusing TC of "separating themselves from the vast majority of the churches, saints, leading brothers, and coworkers throughout the whole earth who are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry”

In essence he and the churches associated with TC were excommunicated because they were not "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WN and WL", of course it is LSM and the BBs that define what exactly that means.

And this is where we tongue-in-cheek suggest that the thread is once again off-topic because there is absolutely no evidence that any of the BBs are apostles at any meaningful level, therefore their quarantine of TC would be meaningless.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I realize that there are a lot who think there is something to all of this near-death experience stuff. They are busy writing book after book about it.

And when they happen to people in the Far East, their stories look like their afterlife beliefs. It tends to suggest that we create things in our heads based on what we believe about life, death, and the thought that we could be dying.

But why should God now actually be sending a bunch of people back from the dead to tell us these fantastic stories (almost exclusively to those who already believe anyway) but wouldn't send someone back to warn the family of the rich man?

It doesn't add up.

If you are referring to Luke 16 God didn't say he wouldn't send people back from the dead, what he said is that if people don't believe Moses and the Prophets neither will they believe if one were to rise from the dead.

This is very different, and the only way to prove that God is right is by sending people back from the dead.

As to people in the Far East dying, my personal experience of that was talking to a Buddhist. He had died in the operating room while in the Army. He was resucitated. His experience was very similar and, surprisingly, he said he met Jesus. I found this very strange since he is a Buddhist, so we talked and he explained that after his experience he did try going to christian churches but didn't understand what they were talking about. But he told me clearly and emphatically that although he is a Buddhist he knows that when he dies he'll see Jesus.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And this is where we tongue-in-cheek suggest that the thread is once again off-topic because there is absolutely no evidence that any of the BBs are apostles at any meaningful level, therefore their quarantine of TC would be meaningless.

Yes, it may technically be off topic but I think all of the seeming disagreement on this thread was the fact that the topic was not well defined.

I don't think the issue was the apostolic gift, but the apostolic authority. What everyone really seemed to take issue with was people calling themselves apostles and taking the authority of an apostle. Those of us who were looking at this as a gift continually said that the exercise of the gift was not dependent on the title. If you remember Igzy gave an analogy of Apostles equaling the uniform of a policeman and I argued it was more like the bullet the poleiceman shoots the killer with that saves my life. I was viewing Apostle as a gift, Igzy was viewing it as authority. The uniform is a sign of the authority. Also, by definition Apostles will exercise this gift in regions where they are not received. That is why it is often necessary for God to do signs and wonders to accompany the work of an apostle. This is also why it is no longer necessary in most cases for the signs and wonders to accompany the work of ministry.

So, I think the real focus of this thread has really been on the exercise of the apostolic authority. If you define it this way I would agree with Igzy's post#1 and #5. The Bible is our authority.

One excellent example of this is in the practice of excommunication. In that case it was the Apostle Paul who prompted and made a case for excommunication to the church and it was the church that agreed. So if we can adjust our focus a little I think the example with TC is on topic.

Also, although they may not have used this language (I'll double check) the BBs were clearly miffed that TC was not receiving WL as the MOTA.

[Cal]

I think this sums up the thread pretty well.

I think all of us are comfortable with the idea of apostolic gifting still being given. This satisfies those who have brought to our attention Eph 4:11. Ephesians 4:11 speaks of gifts, not offices. Note it says shepherds, not elders.

The question is, what is our ground for saying there is an office of apostle, and further, that it no longer exists?

The ground is, this is the judgment of the Body of Christ. The vast majority of serious students of the Bible agree that apostle of the rank and authority of the original 15 or 16 no longer exist because of their required being directly commissioned by the Lord Jesus. Those men had the office of apostle, and men of such type can no longer exist.

Now "can no longer exist" is not an absolute statement. It is situational and practical and borne of centuries of precedent. The Lord Jesus could directly commission someone today if he wanted to in the post-ascension manner he commissioned Paul. However, it is reasonable to assume that such an appointment would include the proof of the power of signs and wonders. It is unreasonable to assume the Lord would expect us just to take someone's word that He appeared to him directly and commissioned him with the authoritative office of apostle.

[Cal]

Note in the last nineteen centuries no one (but those now believed to have been mistaken) has claimed to have been directly commissioned by the Lord in the manner Paul was.

Further, no historical spiritual giants whom above all others might seem to us to deserve the title of apostle has ever claimed it or accepted it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Note in the last nineteen centuries no one (but those now believed to have been mistaken) has claimed to have been directly commissioned by the Lord in the manner Paul was.

Further, no historical spiritual giants whom above all others might seem to us to deserve the title of apostle has ever claimed it or accepted it.

This is the most important point made. And while it has been made over and over, it is now beginning to be accepted as likely true.

The thing that is still a little disconcerting to me is what ZNP refers to as "apostolic authority." While I would not diminish whatever "commission" anyone actually has from God, whether explicit or just the truth without being stated as such, it is the "exercise of authority" that is presumed to come out of "apostolic authority." That then presumes that whoever is an apostle is exercising authority. And I would suggest that in this day and age (and the age has been going on since they first apostles began to die away) that no one is "exercising authority" but rather teaching with clarity and wisdom. Those who recognize it, like recognizing Jesus' speaking with authority, will take note. But it will not be an authority thing, but the clear speaking of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Note in the last nineteen centuries no one (but those now believed to have been mistaken) has claimed to have been directly commissioned by the Lord in the manner Paul was.

Further, no historical spiritual giants whom above all others might seem to us to deserve the title of apostle has ever claimed it or accepted it.

What about the Popes?

[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.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...??

I have never heard of Ron Kangas claiming to be God's deputy authority. At one time after brother Lee had passed, it was said the mantle was passed from brother Lee to the Blended brothers.
What I did hear last November was Ron Kangas backtracking on the issue of deputy authority. (The regional conference On the Cross.) The authority lies with God, not Witness Lee, and not the blended brothers. No one can claim such authority. To make such a claim illustrates no such authority.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Well, as far as Anaheim is concerned, they never *forced* anyone to accept their authority, either. But as long as the Midwest does not accept their authority, they will remain...separate. Like the separation between Jerusalem and Paul's ministry.

We know and they know this is posturing. A brother shared tonight a message from Witness Lee's in the late 80's. Per Witness Lee, If a local church doesn't want to take his ministry, they are still a local church. Practically and corporately.
There are similarities that exist between Anaheim of 1988 and that of Midwest localities around 2005. That is corporately turning from pushing the ministry and not postponing the local church life while bi-annual trainings are going on. Includes the video trainings too. There was the disclaimer saints who want the trainings can still take them in, but on their own time.
Problem is these statements are viewed as being negative towards the ministry, while the leaders taking this turn is from a focus on the ministry to being general corporately to where any Christian could walk through the door and realize they're home.
The posturing is they're not going to force any direction, but behind the scenes LSM and DCP employees were actively assisting local saints in taking action against their localities. What a coincidence these activities seemed to take place only in localities where real estate was at stake.
More of the posturing. Places such as Accra, Moses Lake, Westminster, Rosemead, Scottsdale, Raleigh, etc where there is a general expression of the church, but since "they're not in the flow, they're separate from us". This brings the discussion back to what brings us to assemble? Is it our mutual faith in Jesus Christ as our savior or is it taking the ministry as our corporate expression?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

We know and they know this is posturing. A brother shared tonight a message from Witness Lee's in the late 80's. Per Witness Lee, If a local church doesn't want to take his ministry, they are still a local church. Practically and corporately.
There are similarities that exist between Anaheim of 1988 and that of Midwest localities around 2005. That is corporately turning from pushing the ministry and not postponing the local church life while bi-annual trainings are going on. Includes the video trainings too. There was the disclaimer saints who want the trainings can still take them in, but on their own time.
Problem is these statements are viewed as being negative towards the ministry, while the leaders taking this turn is from a focus on the ministry to being general corporately to where any Christian could walk through the door and realize they're home.
The posturing is they're not going to force any direction, but behind the scenes LSM and DCP employees were actively assisting local saints in taking action against their localities. What a coincidence these activities seemed to take place only in localities where real estate was at stake.
More of the posturing. Places such as Accra, Moses Lake, Westminster, Rosemead, Scottsdale, Raleigh, etc where there is a general expression of the church, but since "they're not in the flow, they're separate from us". This brings the discussion back to what brings us to assemble? Is it our mutual faith in Jesus Christ as our savior or is it taking the ministry as our corporate expression?

Guileless as doves: "Per Witness Lee, If a local church doesn't want to take his ministry, they are still a local church. Practically and corporately."

Crafty as serpents: "...behind the scenes LSM and DCP employees were actively assisting local saints in taking action against their localities."

It is bib-li-cal!!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Crafty as serpents: "...behind the scenes LSM and DCP employees were actively assisting local saints in taking action against their localities."

Even if brother Lee did speak a word the localities don't need to take his ministry to be a local church, some elders don't feel that way. One in particular told me in 1995/96 when I asked about Moses Lake raised in Southern California and not knowing what happened with Washington State localities during the 1980's, I had not idea Moses Lake ceased ties with LSM in 1986.
So I asked the elder, "what about Moses Lake?" (As I had close family friends that came out of Moses Lake.) The elder's response to me was, "they're a rebel church". That statement implies to be a local church, you need to take the Living Stream as your ministry and basis for fellowship if you desire to be in the flow.
Is it possible for LSM affiliated local churches and non-affiliated local churches to have fellowship? Definitely yes if LSM and it's publications or any other ministry is a non-factor. In terms of reading from a text in fellowship, all you need is a Bible. Whether it's NIV, NASB, RCV, etc.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

Even if brother Lee did speak a word the localities don't need to take his ministry to be a local church, some elders don't feel that way. One in particular told me in 1995/96 when I asked about Moses Lake raised in Southern California and not knowing what happened with Washington State localities during the 1980's, I had not idea Moses Lake ceased ties with LSM in 1986.
So I asked the elder, "what about Moses Lake?" (As I had close family friends that came out of Moses Lake.) The elder's response to me was, "they're a rebel church". That statement implies to be a local church, you need to take the Living Stream as your ministry and basis for fellowship if you desire to be in the flow.
Is it possible for LSM affiliated local churches and non-affiliated local churches to have fellowship? Definitely yes if LSM and it's publications or any other ministry is a non-factor. In terms of reading from a text in fellowship, all you need is a Bible. Whether it's NIV, NASB, RCV, etc.

As I see it, the M.O. of the Recovery can be summed up in three words, Authority and Submission. Once you look at things in this context (don't mean you specifically, Terry, speaking generally here), then you can start to understand the dynamic in the Recovery.

In other words, once you stop trying to fit the "round peg" of Recovery behaviors/attitudes/speaking/etc -- into the "square hole" of all that Biblical stuff you think they surely must care about.

Just speaking from my own experience here...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As I see it, the M.O. of the Recovery can be summed up in three words, Authority and Submission. Once you look at things in this context (don't mean you specifically, Terry, speaking generally here), then you can start to understand the dynamic in the Recovery.

In other words, once you stop trying to fit the "round peg" of Recovery behaviors/attitudes/speaking/etc -- into the "square hole" of all that Biblical stuff you think they surely must care about.

Just speaking from my own experience here...

They are the Islamic wing of Christian cults?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They are the Islamic wing of Christian cults?

Everything has to be one extreme or the other?

Originally Posted by Terry

I have never heard of Ron Kangas claiming to be God's deputy authority. At one time after brother Lee had passed, it was said the mantle was passed from brother Lee to the Blended brothers.
What I did hear last November was Ron Kangas backtracking on the issue of deputy authority. (The regional conference On the Cross.) The authority lies with God, not Witness Lee, and not the blended brothers. No one can claim such authority. To make such a claim illustrates no such authority.

Nee taught that coworkers were apostles who were in charge of "the work" and had authority to appoint elders etc. Then within "the work" sphere there was a unwritten but firm hierarchy i.e. pecking order among the "apostles".

I would further suggest that the term "apostles' teaching" used in Acts in the view of the LC members = Lee's teaching and maybe the BB.

The critical point of the Reformation was not justification by faith - that was a derivative. The fundamental work of the Reformers was to shift the loci of authority from a person i.e. Pope and his hierarchy to the believer's conscience and the Bible. This position upsets the status quo and little papalesque sects like the LC react in similar manner as the RC did with Luther, etc. i.e. they try to squelch and suppress any dissent that threatens their leadership curia i.e. their supposed interpretative monopoly on the truth.