Apostles

[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.

[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?

[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.)

[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?

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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 ...

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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...)