Apostles

[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.