Apostles

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.