Apostles

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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).

[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.