Apostles

[OBW]

Unto: I am not going to try to give a definition. But I believe that there is something in the realization that the church is mostly a collection of those who follow, have been baptized, and who obey rather than who have studied like they are in seminary. It does give a different light to the meaning of the things we are currently discussing.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do know that the NT says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" so although the elders are watching over the flock, ultimately the responsibility for your walk as a Christian is up to you. So if you receive the teaching of someone that leads you astray, no doubt they will be judged, but you also will be held accountable.

At some level. And to the extent that you find that you have been duped into following something that is not even really scripture, then I would say you are correct. But I do not expect that everyone will necessarily be up on all the criteria for excommunication. So while I agree that tossing TC was not a reasonable exercise of those criteria, the members in many cities who hardly even know it happened have no basis for saying it was or was not correct. In other words, they are not culpable, and they have no basis to complain to their leadership concerning what happened.

As for what it will mean at the judgment is not a certainty. Even for those who have somewhat better knowledge, but were susceptible to follow the misapplication of scripture of the BBs, I'm not clear whether that is almost like being one of the BBs and will be punished.

In any case, the LRC position seems to be that only those who qualify as near-leadership in their personal application of the LRC brand of righteousness (sometimes something that looks more like unrighteousness) will get to miss the millennial summer school.

If that is the case, then the way that Jesus taught to the masses would seem to be deficient because he didn't tell them a whole lot of this kind of stuff. Instead, it was reserved for the somewhat smaller group that followed everywhere, and even some for only the 12.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

RG's teaching that even if you are wrong, if you are following "the Apostle" you are right, in my mind is a bogus teaching.

I would agree. And this is different from diligently learning from someone and following the best that you can in general. That teaching of RG was meant to cause people who could see through the unrighteousness to ignore it and continue following it anyway. I am not saying "don't exercise any judgment." I'm saying that to the extent that you don't have cause to make the judgment, accepting the judgment of someone whom you have come to trust is not a deficient thing.

And returning to the 12:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This word in Matthew "28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Was spoken to all Christians.

Actually, only to the 11.

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

And I was not saying that we should not have an answer. But the context of Peter's statement was to the question raised by someone who observed the difference in your life — whether relative to your old life, or to the normal lives of the rest of society around you. Surely we have the wherewithal to say something about the Life that changed our life. But that does not mean that we individually should have the knowledge to get into a full-fledged debate of apologetics about our belief system. I think if you look at what I said before, you will see that I said Peter's statement was not about apologetics, or even about going out an preaching the gospel, but about simply acknowledging the source of the change in our lives.

I agree that none of this changes whether or not there are or are not apostles. Or whether or not someone needs to be able to spot the genuine article and differentiate it from the false. But I do have some level of thought that maybe it is not everyone's responsibility — a responsibility for a church of 1 to get right or fall so hard.

In other words, while I can make a significant case for differentiation between the kind of "believe what we tell you to or else" position of the LRC leadership and the common acceptance of "the way I learned it," the overall pattern of teachers imparting what they have learned to the whole of a flock who will then, for the most part, take it to heart and change their lives and live by it is pretty much what we see in the NT.

But because of the peculiar nature of the things that Lee taught us, we now have the impression that all of the NT was written to every Christian and that we are to be just as knowledgeable on all the doctrines and teachings that Paul was. In other words, be Paul without the status of Apostle. I don't see it. Especially if I read the gospels then assume that whatever Paul is writing is supposed to marry up with them. When I do try to harmonize them, I begin to see a legitimate tiering — not in the way of a hierarchy, but in responsibility. There are those whose gift and service is to teach and lead the rest of us. Their failure is not necessarily ours. Notice that Jesus did not fault the Jews who had sort of given up as much as those who were the teachers and did a lousy job of it (being nice to them).

So whose job is it to detect apostles? And depending on your answer to that question, what do we think we are doing here debating the existence and/or qualifications for a present-day apostle? We might just be in over our heads (unless one or more of us is legitimately a teacher).

But it doesn't seem like we have actually arrived at any kind of conclusions. More like realized that we can't even agree on the bounds of the discussion.

This is not a barb to anyone. It is an observation of the whole discussion. It is disjointed because everyone is talking from their understanding of each term. We can't agree on what is an apostle in the first century. Or definitely how to determine who was in and who was out. (And that is just one more problem with so many of these kinds of what I will call esoteric discussions. It is more about who is in and who is out than something of spiritual benefit to us all. And then someone will say that we shouldn't even be talking about Lee then. But Paul gave too clear a criteria for rejecting teachers. And Lee failed. Don't need a degree in discerning teachers to see it. And don't need to worry about "apostles" to do it.)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

But it doesn't seem like we have actually arrived at any kind of conclusions. More like realized that we can't even agree on the bounds of the discussion.

This thread only started 2 1/2 weeks ago, and besides I'm not sure the goal is to have 100% consensus or any kind of firm conclusion. We are a fairly diverse group here and firm conclusions are going to be very hard to come by..and that's ok when it comes to a subject like apostles. Since our view of apostles is not a core matter of the faith, I think it's ok if we end up agreeing to disagree.

As far as "the bounds of the discussion" I think each thread is more or less self explanatory - the title of the thread gives us the bounds of the discussion. "Apostles" - We know that there were apostles appointed directly by the Lord Jesus (these we may refer to as the "original apostles"). We know that there were apostles who functioned in the first century, including those probably appointed by the original apostles. We know that there were a number of early scholars/teachers/leaders that functioned more or less as "second generation" apostles. (we can haggle over this) So we know these things. We have a firm and clear written record. Where things get murky is if true apostles (who function at least partly as the original apostles) continue on through today. I think the key is to never lose sight of what the original apostles taught and how they conducted themselves. So if somebody who claims to be, or is called by others, an apostle we are not without a way to compare and contrast.

This is not a barb to anyone. It is an observation of the whole discussion. It is disjointed because everyone is talking from their understanding of each term. We can't agree on what is an apostle in the first century.

It's disjointed because people keep sidetracking us with all sorts of unrelated issues. Of course we can agree on what is an apostle in the first century...that is if we can all agree that the New Testament is a true and complete record and has faithfully recorded for us all the pertinent who, what and where and when.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

that is if we can all agree that the New Testament is a true and complete record and has faithfully recorded for us all the pertinent who, what and where and when.

A chasm so wide and deep that none of the data can be accessed with any degree of certainty. For starters the record is not complete or we wouldn't be in such a quandary concerning apostles.

[UntoHim]

Ok, our very own doubting Thomas has chimed in (with the usual chime of course )

Anybody else?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, our very own doubting Thomas has chimed in (with the usual chime of course )

Great sense of humor UnToHim. Had me crackin up.

And yes, anyone else got somethin to contribute ...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As far as "the bounds of the discussion" I think each thread is more or less self explanatory - the title of the thread gives us the bounds of the discussion. "Apostles" - We know that there were apostles appointed directly by the Lord Jesus (these we may refer to as the "original apostles"). We know that there were apostles who functioned in the first century, including those probably appointed by the original apostles. We know that there were a number of early scholars/teachers/leaders that functioned more or less as "second generation" apostles. (we can haggle over this) So we know these things. We have a firm and clear written record. Where things get murky is if true apostles (who function at least partly as the original apostles) continue on through today. I think the key is to never lose sight of what the original apostles taught and how they conducted themselves. So if somebody who claims to be, or is called by others, an apostle we are not without a way to compare and contrast.

Yes, that is a bounds. And it is a broad one. Broad enough that even that one word - apostle - is unclear enough that we don't really know what to do with it.

And it seems to have significantly unique a standing, at lest in some minds, that an apostle could either be rejectable as a teacher and still be a legitimate apostle, or could be acceptable as a teacher and be rejected as an apostle. Now I buy the latter because some that that might be a legitimate teacher could be held to a higher level in the minds of some. But if those minds include the teacher himself/herself, then there is a disconnect. And there should be some evidence that the teacher is not as qualified as we first thought since he/she manages to think that much more highly of them self as they ought.

But if they don't meet the "teacher" criteria, why would you even start thinking about any other criteria?

And if our belief in the acceptable teaching coming from an apostle is to speak words that stand in opposition to the records of God's speaking from the early times until now (both the OT and the NT), then we would seem to have greater problems in that we believe in a God of inconsistency. Of capriciousness.

And when you look at virtually all of the historical record since the first century AD, and the only thing you can point to as possibly an apostle are the leaders that seemed more profound in some way — and especially those that taught more of a mystical spirituality than a practicality of Christian living — and have no idea how to qualify them as such other than that you like their "newer" teachings, then we really don't seem to know much about the subject other than the words in which it is framed.

And you and others have pointed out that those original apostles did lay down the base of our faith. They either directly or indirectly put it in writing. But until that happened, the only way you knew that someone was consistently teaching the true gospel was that they we found to have been on of the ones who heard it first hand. And some special marks were given to them.

But with the recording of the faith, there is a lessening of a need for some kind of remarkable sign to establish a teacher. They just need to be within the rather broad (yet narrow) bounds of the truth passed down from the apostles.

Now I have heard missionaries who went into remote areas where they had to slowly learn a new language while among people who had never heard the gospel of Jesus and wouldn't simply accept it as meaningful if they could read it. Some of these missionaries tell of events — miracles, or signs that were meaningful to the locals — that even they were unable to understand or believe except that they knew God's hand was in it. And the result was that they were suddenly accepted by those that saw the sign as telling the truth. Suddenly these missionaries went from being a total outsider who was distrusted to being accepted by at least a portion of the people. And he gospel had a foot hold. Then as the ones who believe began to have their lives changed, others began to see and believe.

So some believed because of the sign. But ultimately more come to believe because they see for themselves.

And this is where it all leads to me. I believe that even the existence of the first century apostles was a gift to the spread of the gospel and the church. And the gifts are given as needed. If that understanding of the gifts is at least somewhat accurate, then there is no particular gift that is literally always required. Surely some are generally needed throughout the continued history of this fallen world. But are all? Or even if occasionally needed, is it an regular, ongoing thing? I'm not really sure. It seems that despite the negative rhetoric of Lee, and even somewhat of Nee and a lot of other "inner life" teachers, the church has really done quite well. The apostles' teaching seems to be continuing to this day. Not perfectly. But based on Paul's letters, that would be true from the beginning.

And so here we are, trying to decide what is an apostle. And unless we conclude that they are certainly over (not sure that is true) then what are we going to do with it? Try to determine who is and is not a present-day apostle? It won't happen. We will just like what we like and dislike what we dislike. What do we gain by elevating teachers? Harold would probably say it best — puffed-up teachers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, that is a bounds. And it is a broad one. Broad enough that even that one word - apostle - is unclear enough that we don't really know what to do with it.

And it seems to have significantly unique a standing, at lest in some minds, that an apostle could either be rejectable as a teacher and still be a legitimate apostle, or could be acceptable as a teacher and be rejected as an apostle.

I do believe that some gifts to the body, considered by some to be an apostle in operation, may later be disqualified due to personal failure. This perhaps may have been the impetus for Rome's "infallibility" tenet.

At least Rome had a caveat for their MotaPope's, vis-a-vis their actions may criminal, but their teachings are "infallible." Anaheim had no such caveat.

[Cal]

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God. In others words, if they spoke something, to the Christians that looked up to them as apostles, their word was as good as the word of God. It's important to realize that no such equivalent can exist today. The word is established, and Revelation warns against adding to it.

The LRC approached and approaches giving Lee this authority. Basically their view was Lee's interpretation of the word is as good as the word--and the corollary, Lee's interpretation is better than anyone's including yours, which precludes your exercising your own interpretation--a stunning limitation!

Now, outside of fringe groups, I don't know of any preeminent Christian teacher in history after the 1st century being afforded that kind of authority. One has to ask oneself, is it legitimate? In my judgment, no way.

It's also important to note that no major Christian teacher including Luther, Calvin, and others, ever sought or accepted the designation of apostle.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Where things get murky is if true apostles (who function at least partly as the original apostles) continue on through today. I think the key is to never lose sight of what the original apostles taught and how they conducted themselves. So if somebody who claims to be, or is called by others, an apostle we are not without a way to compare and contrast

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do believe that some gifts to the body, considered by some to be an apostle in operation, may later be disqualified due to personal failure.

Maybe the truth is that nobody can actually live up to the standard of an apostle. Maybe the truth is that the Body of Christ is so much larger than in the first century, that to have such universal “overseers” is not practical. I am not making dogmatic statements, more like just talking to myself out loud.

“considered by some to be an apostle in operation” - this may be a key in our considerations. Is it possible that someone could be functioning as an apostle to a group of churches (or an affiliation of churches), and recognized by this group as an apostle of sorts, but not recognized by any other group? Does this make this person any less of an apostle if he is only recognized by the group he ministers among? Under this interpretation maybe Witness Lee was an apostle, at least within the sphere of the Local Church.

“may later be disqualified due to personal failure” – Does this bring us back to the “nobody can actually live up to the standard of an apostle?” When it comes to the case of Witness Lee, maybe his personal failures should have disqualified him from reaching “apostle status” in the first place. There were older brothers around (in the US and Taiwan) at the beginning of the Movement in the US that could have sounded the warning but chose not to do so. This is a serious mistake that the Local Church has suffered the repercussions of since the beginning. In all fairness though, nobody can see into the future, and besides is it fair to “try those who call themselves apostles” before they even call themselves apostles?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

“considered by some to be an apostle in operation” - this may be a key in our considerations. Is it possible that someone could be functioning as an apostle to a group of churches (or an affiliation of churches), and recognized by this group as an apostle of sorts, but not recognized by any other group? Does this make this person any less of an apostle if he is only recognized by the group he ministers among? Under this interpretation maybe Witness Lee was an apostle, at least within the sphere of the Local Church.

Often I have wondered what happened to the rest of the "Twelve," who were scattered by persecution. (Acts 8.1-4) Initially, the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, but later all were eventually scattered to the nations, except for the ones martyred in Judea. When I used to work with the college students, I met a believer from India, who talked to me at length how Thomas was the Apostle to their country. I just marveled and worshiped God as I learned that "doubting Thomas" went to India and his fruit still remains to this day.

After Pentecost, the Bible goes completely silent concerning Thomas and he appears to be an apostle only to the people of India. Probably none in Europe would have recognized him as their apostle. When the missionaries of the modern times went to India, they built upon the foundation Thomas had laid. Now, of course, Thomas was one of the Twelve chosen by the Lord, yet he wrote none of scripture. In Judea, he was overpowered by Peter and others in the forefront, yet in India, he operated as an apostle preaching the gospel, establishing churches, cutting straight the truth, appointing elders, etc.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God.

Really, really good point! What I would add is that original apostles (at least Paul) made it perfectly clear that the believers were to "do what I say and do what I do" They were an example in word AND deed. This is especially evident in the apostle Paul's letters to the Corinthians. He made it clear that his authority among them was derived not only from his words but from his work among them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God.

I don't understand what you mean by this. I think it is clear from Paul's writings that he was not given that much respect from the church at large and that large regions rejected his ministry. I think it is also clear that for many genuine Christians either never saw his letters or did not receive them as the word of God.

It was Peter who referred to Paul's writings as "Scripture", but it was done in such a way that it gives me an impression that there was a debate going on about Paul's writings and that many were twisting his words. So we know that some turned away from Paul and rejected him, some taught differently from Paul, some twisted his words, some didn't understand his teachings, and some considered his teachings "scripture". Whereas today only fringe groups and cultic groups would not consider Paul's writings to be authoritative scripture.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Okay, I tell you what I mean: As far as New Testament revelation goes, the apostles' word was the highest authority, until the NT scripture was established.

A lot of Christians in that day questioned the apostles? Well, a lot these days question the Bible. That doesn't take away from their authority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's important to note that in the 1st century the true apostles functioned as the equivalent to our word of God. In others words, if they spoke something, to the Christians that looked up to them as apostles, their word was as good as the word of God. It's important to realize that no such equivalent can exist today. The word is established, and Revelation warns against adding to it.

This idea may be supported by I Thess 2.13

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This idea may be supported by I Thess 2.13

Yes.

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LRC approached and approaches giving Lee this authority. Basically their view was Lee's interpretation of the word is as good as the word--and the corollary, Lee's interpretation is better than anyone's including yours, which precludes your exercising your own interpretation--a stunning limitation!

Now, outside of fringe groups, I don't know of any preeminent Christian teacher in history after the 1st century being afforded that kind of authority. One has to ask oneself, is it legitimate? In my judgment, no way.

I agree that this kind of authority is not legitimate. But I would think that it wasn't legitimate for the original 12 Apostles plus Paul either. How could anyone consider Peter infallible? Look at the council in Acts, no one was treating Paul as the mouthpiece of God. Look at Peter answering to everyone after visiting Cornelius, they were initially treating him as a heretic. From the record I think these ones were viewed in ways similar to leading brothers in the churches today. It is only after their writings were canonized that all Christians came to view their words as scripture.