Apostles

[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.