Apostles

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 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.

In the book, Vision of the Age, WL listed Luther, Madame Guyon, then Zinzendorf, as if God assigned MOTA's one per century.

I don't see anything "kinder, gentler, or more tentative" about RK or BP. RK traveled to Ecuador to call Isitt the internet "man of death" after he nixed DYL and all Brazil, and TC and the GLA.

Just as Darby's successors became increasingly more exclusive, so have WL's.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the book, Vision of the Age, WL listed Luther, Madame Guyon, then Zinzendorf, as if God assigned MOTA's one per century.
I don't see anything "kinder, gentler, or more tentative" about RK or BP. RK traveled to Ecuador to call Isitt the internet "man of death" after he nixed DYL and all Brazil, and TC and the GLA.
Just as Darby's successors became increasingly more exclusive, so have WL's.

I was speaking somewhat ironically, Ohio, with an allusion to W.H. Bush. But speaking factually, from what I have read, RK has not flat out stated that he is the apostle of the age as WL did. That's what I meant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was speaking somewhat ironically, Ohio, with an allusion to W.H. Bush.

But speaking factually, from what I have read, RK has not flat out stated that he is the apostle of the age as WL did. That's what I meant.

I understood your allusion to Bush.

To my knowledge, RK has not called himself the "apostle of the age." I think WL only alluded to these many outrageous claims. It was RK and the Blendeds who actually made them about WL.

RK did, however, refer to himself as a deputy authority of the body of Christ in regard to the quarantines.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I understood your allusion to Bush.

To my knowledge, RK has not called himself the "apostle of the age." I think WL only alluded to these many outrageous claims. It was RK and the Blendeds who actually made them about WL.

RK did, however, refer to himself as a deputy authority of the body of Christ in regard to the quarantines.

I recall WL making the claim to be the Apostle of the age explicitly himself. The first time I heard him do so was @ 1975. I was called to a special brothers only meeting on a Saturday afternoon and heard him make the statement on audio tape. I was shocked and my mind reeled so I remember the occasion pretty clearly. I thought he sounded grandiose. I thought it was unChristian to boast that way. I felt like bolting from the church but I had recently married a burning sister who would not have been willing to leave with me so I didn't.

[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?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can we document this about RK?

Yes, I have read it, but not sure where.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, I have read it, but not sure where.

Get back to us then. Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...?? How about Indiana? He surely would document such a claim?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Get back to us then. Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...?? How about Indiana? He surely would document such a claim?

Can you search through those documents at afaithfulword.com from Whistler?

I'm pretty sure it was in there.

I don't have the 'puter skills you have.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you search through those documents at afaithfulword.com from Whistler?

I'm pretty sure it was in there.

I don't have the 'puter skills you have.

Bro Ohio, are you trying to send me on a wild goose chase? Of course if Kangas ever claimed handed down from Lee deputy authority they wouldn't publicize it on their website ..

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

Get back to us then. Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...?? How about Indiana? He surely would document such a claim?

Statements such as, You're touching God's government, sure are a strong hint in this direction, no? But yes, such a direct statement as what Ohio referred to, that would make it plain as day...

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or anyone else have a source for RK's claim to "deputy authority" passed down from Lee to Ron Kangas ...??

I have never heard of Ron Kangas claiming to be God's deputy authority. At one time after brother Lee had passed, it was said the mantle was passed from brother Lee to the Blended brothers.
What I did hear last November was Ron Kangas backtracking on the issue of deputy authority. (The regional conference On the Cross.) The authority lies with God, not Witness Lee, and not the blended brothers. No one can claim such authority. To make such a claim illustrates no such authority.

Originally Posted by Terry

I have never heard of Ron Kangas claiming to be God's deputy authority. At one time after brother Lee had passed, it was said the mantle was passed from brother Lee to the Blended brothers.
What I did hear last November was Ron Kangas backtracking on the issue of deputy authority. (The regional conference On the Cross.) The authority lies with God, not Witness Lee, and not the blended brothers. No one can claim such authority. To make such a claim illustrates no such authority.

Nee taught that coworkers were apostles who were in charge of "the work" and had authority to appoint elders etc. Then within "the work" sphere there was a unwritten but firm hierarchy i.e. pecking order among the "apostles".

I would further suggest that the term "apostles' teaching" used in Acts in the view of the LC members = Lee's teaching and maybe the BB.

The critical point of the Reformation was not justification by faith - that was a derivative. The fundamental work of the Reformers was to shift the loci of authority from a person i.e. Pope and his hierarchy to the believer's conscience and the Bible. This position upsets the status quo and little papalesque sects like the LC react in similar manner as the RC did with Luther, etc. i.e. they try to squelch and suppress any dissent that threatens their leadership curia i.e. their supposed interpretative monopoly on the truth.

[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.