Apostles

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why is the fact that they wrote scripture being used as a criteria for classifying or identifying apostles?

Because the primary job of the early apostles was to establish the faith.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because the primary job of the early apostles was to establish the faith.

Great, now we are getting somewhere. What are the verse references?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because the primary job of the early apostles was to establish the faith.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great, now we are getting somewhere. What are the verse references?

Matt 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee . . . . Then Jesus came to them and said, “. . . . go and make disciples . . . baptizing . . . and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Acts 6:2-4 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” (BTW, very off-topic, but did anyone notice that there was a "Nicolas" among the seven chosen. Just doubting that he was named "bully.")

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

I do not find specific verses (at least not quickly) where it says "the apostles are supposed to establish the faith" but it seems that these, and probably a lot more, pretty well set them as the source of the teachings that were recorded in the scripture. It was the 11 — not every follower at the time — that got the word to go and disciple in Matthew. It was their teaching that was the thing further contemplated in Acts 2. Deacons were sought to fulfill some of the service roles so that the 12 could be devoted to prayer and ministry of the word. And Paul was set apart for a work that God called him to.

When I consider scripture, I see the gospels that provide the core. And the Acts that give us a historical perspective of the spread. Then the various epistles that comment on the practice of the gospel — the living-out of the gospel.

I note that we so often look to Paul for our doctrine. But the core of our doctrine should come from Christ. Paul commented. He observed the ways that the church, and especially the Gentile churches that did not have an OT background, could miss the righteousness required by the gospel. Fighting among each other due to social status, or which teacher they liked best. And a lot of other things. From what I can tell, Paul didn't teach such new things, but instead came back through his letters to correct wanderings from the correct following (disciples) and obeying.

We seem to think that Paul wrote Galatians to tell us to be crucified with Christ. But he actually told us that we have been. And that since we have, we should not be doing the things he is hearing about. Seems the solution was not to get more crucified, but to obey. Sound familiar?

Well it should. Jesus taught a lot. It is recorded in the gospels. We are to become followers of that. And obey it. And when Paul said for others to take his life as a pattern, he wasn't talking about being spiritual, "being crucified," or any of the imagery that he used to spur them on, but about the things that he was spurring them on in — obedience.

And now it is written down for our benefit. Though at times it seems that maybe we could actually need an apostle to come tell us that we have been too focused on the imagery of Paul and less on the command to follow and obey given by Jesus and repeated over and over by Paul, Peter, John, and even James, Jude, and whoever actually wrote Hebrews.

Now for those who have truly been living under a rock, or in a remote rain forest, and have never even heard of Christ or the Bible, they need someone sent to them. And it may take more than a lot of words, even words dictated by the true God, to convince them. They may need to see something that demonstrates that it is more than good words from mortal men. It may take a miracle. And I believe that on occasion that happens today. But not very often in what we call the civilized world. But the seeming reduction or near disappearance of miracles and signs does not say anything about God, but about the need for signs and miracles. Their time may not be over, but it could be close to true. Same for apostles of the kind that we read of in the NT. I can't find evidence that they simply are no more. But I don't really see them either.

We don't know when, but there are things that will pass away. We can presume that it is upon the return of Christ. But that is not stated. Just presumed. Observe the history. Miracles led the children of Israel out of Egypt and into the good land. And there were miracles surrounding the winning of several battles. But then the miracles began to be limited to the fact that the words of the prophets came true. And then even prophetic silence. Yet during that silence, in some ways Israel was in better shape than ever. They had finally gotten the idolatry out of their midst. That was the one thing that God seemed to care about the most.

Now the NT. The church. It gets established. The core teachings of the faith are given and recorded. And we continue on from that. Just like Israel, we have some different camps. But we are still following. There were the Sadducees and Pharisees (not looking at their leadership issues, but at them as representatives of major schools of thought). There were the two major rabbis teaching about many things. (And Jesus took sides on the issue of divorce.) Looks like Christianity. Lee would fault it all because there was not just one rabbi (him) and everyone in the same school of thought. But Jesus really didn't say as much about that as the hypocrisy in many of their teachings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

(BTW, very off-topic, but did anyone notice that there was a "Nicolas" among the seven chosen. Just doubting that he was named "bully.")
From what I can tell, Paul didn't teach such new things, but instead came back through his letters to correct wanderings from the correct following (disciples) and obeying.

OBW, nice "jab" about the Nicholas - "bully" comment. You snuck that one in, didn't you?

I have to disagree about Paul's teachings, they did go further than the teaching of the Twelve. Many things he taught were from the resurrected Christ as the Spirit and not the earthly Jesus, even as the Lord told the Twelve in John 16.12-15.

[zeek]

The original premise of this thread is that the Bible is today's apostle. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness [Wikipedia]. One problem with that idea is that how the Bible is interpreted is as important as what the Bible says. To understand the problem, imagine that no one knows how to read. It wouldn't matter how inspired the Bible is if no one can read and understand it. Of course most people do know how to read. But reading also requires understanding. The words of the Bible are ambiguous enough to permit many interpreations. How do we know which if any are correct? If every individual makes his or her own interpretation, we are hardly in an analogous situation to that of churches under the authority of a living apostle.

The other side of the authority issue is the theory of apostolic succession. The Roman Catholic doctrine on this is the most familiar, with the Orthodox Church next. However, as I imagine most of you are aware, theories of apostolic succession abound in the denominations. Witness Lee seems to have claimed that the Lord's recovery apostolic succession was resumed beginning with Count Zinzendorf. Witness Lee did not name a successor so I take it was intention to confer apostolic authority to the "Blended Brothers." If I'm right about this, that would mean that apostolic authority is what is "blended" among them. What do you think?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee seems to have claimed that the Lord's recovery apostolic succession was resumed beginning with Count Zinzendorf. Witness Lee did not name a successor so I take it was intention to confer apostolic authority to the "Blended Brothers." If I'm right about this, that would mean that apostolic authority is what is "blended" among them. What do you think?

I thought WL assigned Luther the first MOTA of recovery apostolic succession?

Ron Kangas, the leading Blended theologian, has stated that he is a "deputized authority" of the body of Christ, which to me is a supposed "apostolic authority" conferred upon him by WL, and which he demonstrated in those recent quarantines.

[zeek]

It's possible WL assigned Luther as the first apostle in a resumed succession. We'll have to search the Life Studies. If that true about RK, then he's claiming apostleship albeit apparently in a "kinder, gentler", more tentative way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ron Kangas, the leading Blended theologian, has stated that he is a "deputized authority" of the body of Christ, which to me is a supposed "apostolic authority" conferred upon him by WL, and which he demonstrated in those recent quarantines.

Can we document this about RK?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

The original premise of this thread is that the Bible is today's apostle. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness [Wikipedia]. One problem with that idea is that how the Bible is interpreted is as important as what the Bible says. To understand the problem, imagine that no one knows how to read. It wouldn't matter how inspired the Bible is if no one can read and understand it. Of course most people do know how to read. But reading also requires understanding. The words of the Bible are ambiguous enough to permit many interpretations. How do we know which if any are correct? If every individual makes his or her own interpretation, we are hardly in an analogous situation to that of churches under the authority of a living apostle.

zeek is getting us to the heart of the matter I believe.

Igzy has proposed that

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

I would put a little finer point this. My take would be that

Our apostle therefore is the apostles' teachings as presented in the New Testament

Maybe this is exactly what Igzy means and if so I'm just spitting hairs.

I must admit, at the start of this thread, I was more on the side of those who say there are (should be) apostles today. On the surface it appears that Ephesians 4:11 ("And He gave some apostles..") is strong evidence for this view. The statement a few verses earlier ("..And He gave gifts to men") helps to bolster this view as well. But I must bow to the realities that we are faced with in the here and now. This is to say nothing of the fact that just about everybody (in our lifetimes) who has ever said they were an apostle, or were called an apostle by others, has completely and utterly failed the test - they have been tried and found to be false. Sorry to say my dear Local Church brothers and sisters (current and former), but Witness Lee definitely falls into the "tried and found to be false" category.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I must admit, at the start of this thread, I was more on the side of those who say there are (should be) apostles today. On the surface it appears that Ephesians 4:11 ("And He gave some apostles..") is strong evidence for this view. The statement a few verses earlier ("..And He gave gifts to men") helps to bolster this view as well. But I must bow to the realities that we are faced with in the here and now. This is to say nothing of the fact that just about everybody (in our lifetimes) who has ever said they were an apostle, or were called an apostle by others, has completely and utterly failed the test - they have been tried and found to be false. Sorry to say my dear Local Church brothers and sisters (current and former), but Witness Lee definitely falls into the "tried and found to be false" category.

WL wanted us to believe (as JND before him) that all of Christianity has miserably failed, has become incurably divided, and has become hopelessly degraded, hence both God and man ought to abandon her completely. Was that not his continual message of the last half century?

Hence, God had to raise up another apostle, like unto Paul, who would bring about local testimonies of golden lampstands all one, and all pleasing to the Lord, thus preparing His return. In this way WL wanted us to believe that the same apostolic authority given to Paul, was now given to him. Many of us believed this to varying degrees.

If ..... and I say if ..... the Head of the body were as disgruntled with divisions as we were taught to believe, giving up on Christianity as we were taught to believe, and starting from scratch in the LC's as we were taught to believe, then I do believe the Lord would have to establish a modern day apostle, like He did with Paul. All the signs and wonders of the 1st century must also accompany this "apostle." His life must also be as exemplary as Paul's was.

To me this exactly defines the WL/Blended dilemma. They fiercely believe all of the above. Therefore, they must "doctor up" their image of WL to match that of Paul and the early apostles. Any positive thing must be attributed to WL, and every negative thing must be blamed on others. If you swallow this "Hollywood imagery" of the Recovery, asking no questions nor accepting any facts to the contrary, then you are "living in the land of make believe," as the old Moody Blues song so aptly describes:

Take a look -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5R44dN-L0Q

We're living in the land of make-believe
And trying not to let it show
Maybe in that land of make-believe
Heartaches can turn into joy.

We're breathing in the smoke of high and low
We're taking up a lot of room
Somewhere in the dark and silent night
Our prayer will be heard, make it soon.

So fly little bird
Up into the clear blue sky
And carry the word
Love's the only reason why, why.

Open all the shutters on your windows
Unlock all the locks upon your doors
Brush away the cobwebs from your day-dreams
No secrets come between us any more
Oh say it's true
Only love will see you through
You know what love can do to you.

We're living in a land of make-believe
And trying not to let it show
Maybe in that land of make-believe
Heartaches can turn into joy.

We're breathing in the smoke of high and low
We're taking up a lot of room
Somewhere in the dark and lonely night
Our prayer will be heard, make it soon.

So fly little bird
Up into the clear blue sky
And carry the word
Love's the only reason why, why.

Open all the shutters on your windows
Unlock all the locks upon your doors
Brush away the cobwebs from your day-dreams
No secrets come between us any more
Oh say it's true
Only love will see you through
You know what love can do to you.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I must admit, at the start of this thread, I was more on the side of those who say there are (should be) apostles today. On the surface it appears that Ephesians 4:11 ("And He gave some apostles..") is strong evidence for this view. The statement a few verses earlier ("..And He gave gifts to men") helps to bolster this view as well. But I must bow to the realities that we are faced with in the here and now. This is to say nothing of the fact that just about everybody (in our lifetimes) who has ever said they were an apostle, or were called an apostle by others, has completely and utterly failed the test - they have been tried and found to be false. Sorry to say my dear Local Church brothers and sisters (current and former), but Witness Lee definitely falls into the "tried and found to be false" category.

I have followed this thread from the first post and I don’t think anyone has adequately defined what the gift of apostles is. It seems to me that this is the crucial concept that must be addressed before you can come to any conclusions.

One issue we find is that apostles are also evangelists, they are also shepherds and teachers, and they are also prophets. And in fact I think that should lead us to a useful definition. I would compare an Apostle to a “Pioneer species”. This is a scientific term and I have provided a definition for those of you who are not familiar with this.

Pioneer species are species which colonize previously uncolonized land, usually leading to ecological succession. They are the first organisms to start the chain of events leading to a livable biosphere or ecosystem. Since uncolonized land may have thin, poor quality soils with few nutrients, pioneer species are often hearty plants with adaptations such as long roots, root nodes containing nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and leaves that employ transpiration. Pioneer species will die creating plant litter, and break down as 'leaf mold' after some time, making new soil for secondary succession (see below), and nutrients for small fish and aquatic plants in adjacent bodies of water.

Based on this, I would propose the following definition: Apostles are gifted Christians that can go into land where the gospel has not previously been and plant churches. Often in a situation like that it is necessary for God to assist the work with signs and wonders.

It is also important to understand that when pioneer plants go into an uncolonized land, and this leads to ecological succession, it also usually leads to the pioneer plants becoming marginalized and almost eliminated. So from this standpoint, it does seem to support the original thesis by Igzy based on the book he quoted, that we no longer need apostles.

However, nature does not work this way. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted the surrounding area was wiped out of all life. The first life to return were the pioneer species. Five times in Earth’s history we have had devastating extinction events planet wide, again life bounced back very quickly, in a large part due to the pioneer species. So this also supports the position I and others have taken that the gift of the apostles remains with us. Even if these gifted ones are dormant or marginalized, in the event of a holocaust or communist revolution, or some other event that wipes out the “Christian ecosystem” they will flourish again. All you have to do is read the history of the Christians in China during the last 70 years to realize that we have had legitimate apostles with signs and wonders.

So I do agree that the US today does not need the gift of the apostles, yet at the same time I also believe that these gifted ones are here, present, and will become extremely valuable to the Body of Christ in the event that we do need them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW, nice "jab" about the Nicholas - "bully" comment. You snuck that one in, didn't you?

I have to disagree about Paul's teachings, they did go further than the teaching of the Twelve. Many things he taught were from the resurrected Christ as the Spirit and not the earthly Jesus, even as the Lord told the Twelve in John 16.12-15.

First, it was not intended as a jab, although I did recall that there was some question raised by some of the non-clergy/laity thinking that maybe this particular Nicolas was somehow the source of the name. I always considered that to be nothing more than speculation. But the idea that we took the reading of the nuances of the words that could make up the name and found the ones that created something that could be made hay of in teaching something that seems special rather than allowing for the more likely meanings is not particularly new. And not a lot different than saying that "economy" simply equals "dispensing." (And only dispensing.)

I would agree that Paul's teachings were of a different type than those of the 12. But I'm not sure that his goal was really any different than theirs. The more I read Paul, the more I see him directing his charges to imitate Christ, and to obey. Imitate Christ in so many ways. Not squabbling over social status, or condemning those who believe differently with respect to certain things, like meat offered to idols, or observing days. These are not an exclusive list, but examples.

And I think that if you read Paul a little more broadly (meaning read the whole passage in which he says some of those interesting and spiritual things) you may find that he seldom says to do spiritual things, or to work on spiritual things, but to note that there are spiritual realities that allow (and even command) that you obey with respect to whatever it is that Paul is talking about. So Paul does give us a brilliant painting of the spiritual realities, but they are not for the purpose of being spiritual as much as they are for the purpose of being the righteous, obedient follower that Jesus commanded.

In other words, the gospels really are the core. They are the heart of the divine revelation. We may get a better look behind the curtain with Paul's writings, but all of it is to direct us back to following and obeying. Not to falling all over "spiritual" activities. And we have seen through the value of those overly-adjectivized phrases that the LRC shouts "hallelujah!" about so much. But have we considered that running around trying to determine whether we are living the "I've been crucified with Christ" life enough to finally do that thing that Jesus (and also Paul) commanded is just as bad. Paul didn't say go get more crucified. He said we are, so we should do.

Doesn't look as different from the gospels when that is your view. And more and more I am unable to see Paul as telling us so much unique stuff as much as I see him commenting on the real core of the New Testament. And that is the gospels.

And another LRC error. They are so sure that John is the really important gospel. But if that is true, why did God have the others written first, and seemingly three passes at much of the same things, then later add that different gospel by John? Maybe the content of the other three is three times more important than the one. (Probably not that simple.) Or the three are the core, but the one is also needed. And if you are going to focus on only part of it, the weight of the three may just indicate relative importance in some ways. You can be obedient without getting into so much of the spirituality. But if you try to be spiritual without the obedience, you are just a sham.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And another LRC error. They are so sure that John is the really important gospel. But if that is true, why did God have the others written first, and seemingly three passes at much of the same things, then later add that different gospel by John? Maybe the content of the other three is three times more important than the one. (Probably not that simple.) Or the three are the core, but the one is also needed. And if you are going to focus on only part of it, the weight of the three may just indicate relative importance in some ways. You can be obedient without getting into so much of the spirituality. But if you try to be spiritual without the obedience, you are just a sham.

It's not just the LRC that sometimes views the Gospel of John uniquely, but that should not in any way diminish the importance of the other three. Each gospel has its own viewpoint, as inspired by the Spirit. I see no LRC error on this point, in fact, the LSM might have been faulted for diminishing the value of John in favor of their more legalistic teachings on the "kingdom" found in Matthew.

Dr. Philip Comfort, formerly a minister in the Church in Columbus at its inception, was passionate about the gospel of John, his favorite book of the Bible. He eventually departed from the LRC after he was badly abused by TC of Cleveland, whose chief rebuke was that PC was "too theoretical." Amazingly, no one else, including all the GLA leaders, felt this way about PC and his ministry until the "wise seer" TC was able to point this out.

I do believe the gospel of John is unique because of the time it was written. Instead of being written by a young teenage John, an eye-witness of all these events from the earliest days of Jesus' ministry, it was written by an aging and mature John, who had benefited from decades of serving the Lord in the churches.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do believe the gospel of John is unique because of the time it was written. Instead of being written by a young teenage John, an eye-witness of all these events from the earliest days of Jesus' ministry, it was written by an aging and mature John, who had benefited from decades of serving the Lord in the churches.

But Act 4:13 says that John was illiterate. So likely the Gospel of John was written by John's followers, in the school of John in Ephesus. But we don't know that for sure, cuz the gospel of John was written anonymously.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Matt 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee . . . . Then Jesus came to them and said, “. . . . go and make disciples . . . baptizing . . . and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Acts 6:2-4 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

So then, if these are the verses that demonstrate an Apostle's function was to confirm the faith, you have to ask do these verses only apply to the 1st century apostles, or are they still applicable today?

Today, do we need some to "teach new converts to obey everything the Lord has commanded"? I would say yes.

Today our version of the Apostle's teaching is the NT. However, there were only 3 of the 12 apostles who wrote the NT. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that the other 9 apostle's taught the same thing as the NT. Is it really that different if someone today teaches the NT? Once again, I would say that this verse is still applicable today.

In Acts 6 we see the apostles devoted themselves to the ministry of the word. Do we really think that this function is no longer applicable. I would say that today we still have those that devote themselves to the ministry of the word.

In Acts 13 it describes Barnabas and Paul being set aside for the work that Jesus called him to. Neither of these two was an eyewitness to the Lord's earthly ministry as one of the disciples. Therefore, the idea that Apostles are limited to those that were with the Lord from the beginning is certainly not applicable. Once again, based on this verse I would say we still have the Lord calling believer and setting believers aside to the work.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, if these are the verses that demonstrate an Apostle's function was to confirm the faith, you have to ask do these verses only apply to the 1st century apostles, or are they still applicable today?

Today, do we need some to "teach new converts to obey everything the Lord has commanded"? I would say yes.

Today our version of the Apostle's teaching is the NT. However, there were only 3 of the 12 apostles who wrote the NT. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that the other 9 apostle's taught the same thing as the NT. Is it really that different if someone today teaches the NT? Once again, I would say that this verse is still applicable today.

In Acts 6 we see the apostles devoted themselves to the ministry of the word. Do we really think that this function is no longer applicable. I would say that today we still have those that devote themselves to the ministry of the word.

In Acts 13 it describes Barnabas and Paul being set aside for the work that Jesus called him to. Neither of these two was an eyewitness to the Lord's earthly ministry as one of the disciples. Therefore, the idea that Apostles are limited to those that were with the Lord from the beginning is certainly not applicable. Once again, based on this verse I would say we still have the Lord calling believer and setting believers aside to the work.

I agree in principle. Of course, I think I indicated that I do not consider these to be some kind of definitive verses, but ones that paint a picture. And for me, the picture they paint has a context and it includes looking at the whole of the OT and NT history, seeing that Jesus did not command everyone to go and disciple, etc.

But when you mention that there are people today who devote themselves to prayer and teaching the word, that is true of many people that I would not assert as being apostles at much of any level. Clearly teachers, but not apostles. The question of significance is whether there is some kind of special office/gift/position (or whatever) that is a kind of apostle that we should be keen to keep in front of us, or rather something much more general. If it is something much more general, then the earlier comments that I and others have made indicating that the real discernment is in the teachings and in the character of the person may still be all you need.

And if it is so general, then what is the significance of saying it is an apostle rather than simply a teacher? Are gaining anything from figuring out who is an apostle? Or are we simply doing mental gymnastics and the truth is that we are going to accept the good teachings and reject the bad either way and nothing will change except for our "reverence" toward any so-called "apostle." If that is all we accomplish, then I would probably rather not have a basis for thinking that certain ones may be apostles because that would simply be an invitation for a new sect and a personality cult.

But if there really are these important apostles today, then it must not mean much of anything because no one is really doing much to the culture and the church. And if it doesn't really mean much, then it must mean that God is being stymied in this area. And since God is not stymied, I tend to end out right back in the same place — apostles in this era, even if they exist, are not about being identified, but about their service. Let's leave it that way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

apostles in this era, even if they exist, are not about being identified, but about their service. Let's leave it that way.

Hey, just for fun let's list names of possible apostles today.

How about :

Billy Graham. Is/was he an apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter either way?

What about Rick Warren, of Purpose Drive Life fame? Apostle, yes or no? Does it matter either way?

What about Jerry Falwell? Was he an apostle or not? Yes or no? Did it matter either way?

What about Pat Robertson? Apostle, yes or no? Does it make a difference either way?

What about John Hagee? Apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter which it is?

What about Joyce Meyers? An apostle like some women that traveled with Paul? Yes or no? Does it make a difference one way or the other?

Anyone else anyone would like to ponder if they were a modern day apostle? The list of possibilities is long.

Was Witness Lee an apostle? Extract the authority element, does it really matter either way?

As much as I've enjoyed this discussion about apostles, I have to say, this concern about modern day apostles is superfluous to the max. If it is so that, there are modern day apostles, it's God's concern, workings, and business. Not ours. If they exist, should we grant special authority to them? Is that the point of discovering modern day apostles? To accept, submit too, and follow and obey a man?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, just for fun let's list names of possible apostles today.

How about :

1. Billy Graham. Is/was he an apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter either way?
   
2. What about Rick Warren, of Purpose Drive Life fame? Apostle, yes or no? Does it matter either way?
   
3. What about Jerry Falwell? Was he an apostle or not? Yes or no? Did it matter either way?
   
4. What about Pat Robertson? Apostle, yes or no? Does it make a difference either way?
   
5. What about John Hagee? Apostle? Yes or no? Does it matter which it is?
   
6. What about Joyce Meyers? An apostle like some women that traveled with Paul? Yes or no? Does it make a difference one way or the other?
   
7. Anyone else anyone would like to ponder if they were a modern day apostle? The list of possibilities is long.
   
8. Was Witness Lee an apostle? Extract the authority element, does it really matter either way?

All of the above?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, just for fun let's list names of possible apostles today.

How about :

. . . .

Only one has what I would consider reasonable stature. And he would scoff at the suggestion. So I will stick with Unto's line. They ain't claiming it and I won't saddle any of them with it.