God's economy vs Deputy authority

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The bottom line is that the LRC operates in principle much like the Catholic church. It's a hierarchical authority structure where authority flows from one man, down through lieutenants, to churches, to individuals.

Either you believe this type of authority structure is valid, or you believe that churches are autonomous and that extra-local workers are servants with no direct authority over churches and individuals. But you cannot believe both.

The LRC acts as if imbuing their authoritative structure with lofty spiritual rhetoric (Body, organic, flow, Recovery, move of God, deputy authority, MOTA, etc.) turns it into something different than what it is, but it doesn't.

Actually the Bible record in the N.T. does not present either extreme for us to choose. Things are just not that simple. Sometimes I wish they were.

There is the record of apostles and workers traveling thru churches ministering and appointing elders. The record of love in their fellowship showed some saints willing to risk their lives and even "pluck out their eyes." At times certain churches were used as centers for their work and ministry. There are definite Biblical supports for how Catholicism, Brethrenism, and the Recovery got started. Many well-meaning brothers went along with the movement because of the support of many scripture.

However, the Bible also strongly asserts the need for mature elders, men of good repute, to watch over the flock diligently against even those who might rise up from within. This was Paul's last admonition to the Ephesian elders. We must face the fact that warnings abound in the entire of the N.T. from the beginnings of the Gospels thru the Acts to the last of the Epistles. Paul constantly battled Judaizing operatives from Jerusalem, whether sponsored by James or not, who worked to bring all the churches under a central command.

My conclusion is that churches should be willing to receive from many ministries in the body of Christ. One role of the elder-shepherds is to direct the flock to those ministries which are approved, time-tested, well known by their fruit, and helpful to meet certain needs of their many saints. Being connected to one and only one ministry can never be healthy, and once problems at that ministry surface, the elders must expose it so all may learn. The elders must lead the flock based on the whole of scripture. No line of teaching can be used to the exclusion of other healthy doctrines.

WL was extremely adept at using scripture for self-serving gains. Balancing and conflicting verses were minimized or excluded from discussion. Reading only LSM materials diminished the ability of the members to discern the many biased teachings.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually the Bible record in the N.T. does not present either extreme for us to choose. Things are just not that simple. Sometimes I wish they were.

I disagree. All one has to do is conclude such apostolic authority does not exist today. All that is required to do that is to conclude those who had it were either direct witnesses of Jesus or close associates of those who were.

History has proven me right. No claims of apostolic authority since the early church have led to any good.

This is what I believe, so I also believe the two choices I mentioned do hold.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I disagree. All one has to do is conclude such apostolic authority does not exist today. All that is required to do that is to conclude those who had it were either direct witnesses of Jesus or close associates of those who were.

History has proven me right. No claims of apostolic authority since the early church have led to any good.

I understand. We have discussed this before. Wouldn't it be nice if the Bible just said this?

Perhaps we could agree to say that once they claim apostolic authority, we know there is a problem.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I understand. We have discussed this before. Wouldn't it be nice if the Bible just said this?

Perhaps we could agree to say that once they claim apostolic authority, we know there is a problem.

I'll go along with that gladly.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I understand. We have discussed this before. Wouldn't it be nice if the Bible just said this?

I think the Bible does say enough to give us guidance. In Revelation it says

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now although this word is spoken directly about the Book of Revelation I think the principle applies to the other books of the NT. Peter and Paul both have other relevant verses as well (for the sake of brevity I will assume everyone agrees). As a result I think you can make a strong case for the "apostolic authority" of the NT and that no one can claim a higher authority than the word of God, which is equated to the incarnated God.

As to "apostles" the only NT figure that was clearly a "Minister of the Age" at the time he was speaking would have been Peter since the Lord promised him the "keys to the kingdom" yet the NT records the Apostle Peter being rebuked and corrected by Paul, and having to have his revelation confirmed by elders in Jerusalem. So I see no NT basis to say that there is ever a "Minister of the Age" in the sense that they are above rebuke and correction. Likewise the Apostle Paul said that he had not arrived, indicating that he also was not full grown or perfect.

As to appointing elders it would be completely pointless for the Book of Timothy to go into such detail about what was necessary to appoint elders if we don't still have brothers like Timothy who might appoint elders. So, if Hudson Taylor preaches the gospel in China, establishes a church, he has the authority to appoint elders according to Paul's instruction in Timothy. Likewise, if the Catholic church has left the apostle's teaching in the NT and Martin Luther has shown them their fault and they refuse to listen to him he is not called to bondage, he can leave and continue to meet with other like minded Christians and again, appoint elders in every church. He will have to stand before the Lord's judgement, but if the Lord agrees with his leaving the Catholic church I doubt he'll be condemned for appointing elders in a church.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the Bible does say enough to give us guidance. In Revelation it says

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now although this word is spoken directly about the Book of Revelation I think the principle applies to the other books of the NT. Peter and Paul both have other relevant verses as well (for the sake of brevity I will assume everyone agrees).

Humor me. I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't have a basis to opine one way or the other.

This is one of those things that comes up everywhere all the time. And somehow I always have some nagging sense that it's not quite so simple. But I don't have a basis to agree or disagree.

So, again, humor me. What are the other relevant verses. Not trying to cause trouble. I just got skittish about simply taking people's word about things without seeing the basis for their conclusions. And I know that a lot of smarter people than me say this all the time, so I presume I will be persuaded.

No rush. Just want to see enough to conclude.

Thanks,

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Humor me. I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't have a basis to opine one way or the other.

This is one of those things that comes up everywhere all the time. And somehow I always have some nagging sense that it's not quite so simple. But I don't have a basis to agree or disagree.

So, again, humor me. What are the other relevant verses. Not trying to cause trouble. I just got skittish about simply taking people's word about things without seeing the basis for their conclusions. And I know that a lot of smarter people than me say this all the time, so I presume I will be persuaded.

No rush. Just want to see enough to conclude.

Thanks,

Sure, here is a samplling:

Rev 22:18 says that no man can add to the prophecy, so for example if the Catholic church wants to add the worship of Mary to the NT then they are clearly forbidden. The authority of the Bible trumps any man in this situation.

Rev 22:19 says that if any man takes away from the words of the prophecy then God will take away his name from the book of life. So if the JW's want to take a few verses away that are inconvenient for their teaching then clearly the Bible again forbids this and trumps any man in this situation.

Heb 4:12 says that the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit. So if some would be apostle and his followers try to promote his ministry over the word of God, his words are clearly less sharp and less able to divide the soul from the spirit. To me this means there is no basis to promote a man's ministry over the word of God.

Peter said that no verse of the Bible is of its own interpretation, but that you should use verses of the Bible to interpret other verses. Therefore you can use the Bible to disprove a teaching, even if it is by the MOTA, and you can use the Bible to confirm a teaching, even if the MOTA doesn't like it, and you are required to use the Bible to establish a teaching. Once again, this puts the Bible above any MOTA.

In both Galatians and 2 Cor Paul condemned false apostles who preach another Jesus, or another gospel, or another spirit. So to me this shows that anyone purporting to be an apostle from God must have a teaching that is aligned with the NT. Therefore the NT trumps any MOTA.


According to 1Thes 1:5 a minister of the word should be someone who through their manner of life gives assurance to those they are ministering to that they are men of God. Therefore, the word clearly rejects anyone who is fleshly or sinful from being a “MOTA”.

1Tim 6:3 says that if a man does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ that he knows nothing. Clearly a “MOTA”, “Apostle”, “Prophet” etc should submit to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Once again the authority of the word of God trumps any would be MOTA.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sure, here is a sampling . . . .

I can see the various verses make it clear that any kind of teaching that is inconsistent with existing scripture does not stand. They clearly speak against so much of the kinds of things that Lee taught, making it clear that even if there were such a thing as a MOTA, it wasn't Lee.

But none of them defined the boundaries of scripture so neatly as to extend those two verses in Revelation to define what is scripture. And since there were many things already written that were not inconsistent with what we have as the Bible now, yet are not included as scripture, then it does not seem that simple — unless we are prepared to join the ranks of those two guys who visited here a year or so ago claiming that if they wrote, it was scripture.

The verses in Revelation obviously speak concerning that one writing of John. Whether they are speaking concerning anything else still appears to be speculation.

The other verses make it clear that scripture is of the inspiration of God. By extension, unless we have a fickle, arbitrary, and capricious God, the whole of his words should not lead us in contradictory ways. But they don't define the boundaries of the sum of scripture, just the boundaries of the content of scripture.

Whether there could be more scripture is not defined. Neither whether all of the 66 books that we now call scripture are required to be called scripture is defined.

My recollection is that when they got together to try and agree on a single definition of the whole of scripture, it was not exactly a unanimous decision. In part, they left some out as redundant (although this was mostly from the epistles rather than the gospels). They provided nothing insightful that was not already found in other writings. They argued over the inclusion of some, including James. And in the end, the appearance of unanimity was somewhat an illusion brought on by the fact that there was an external, secular power that would make those who did not agree into heretics who could be banned and even punished.

I do not allow that last part to dissuade me from what we got. It is coherent, and consistent. Yes, Paul did write some more (or it is said to be so). But it was restating what he or others already said fairly clearly. But just because he or others said it does not make it scripture-worthy. They must speak from and for God. While Paul's writings were often very different from all that had gone before, they still synthesized what was already there in a way that was consistent in message.

And Lee's teachings too often were not consistent in message.

For me, even without the expansion of the Revelation edict, I take the NT a little like the Jews did (and still do) the old. The Torah is the law. Everything else is interpretation. (I probably got that somewhat wrong, but it is still how they say it.) In other words, it starts with the basics — the foundation. Then come the details and understanding. But no matter how new the details and understanding may seem, they are not inconsistent.

Same with the NT. The gospels provide the base of truth. Acts records host that was begun to be lived out. The rest fills in details and explains, but does not change the base.

So, at some level, good writers who deal with the nuances of today's issues are like the writers of the epistles. They take our uncertainty of living righteously in this particular version of a perverse and crooked generation and fill in details. And some do it better than others. And some do it quite poorly. But if they can't measure up to, and remain faithful to the core — the scripture — then they get discarded. Or we surely hope so.

The earliest of those writings became scripture. They were found to be clearly the speaking of God to the people and situations at hand. This does not lessen the importance of similar writings of current times except to say that we do not elevate any of it to the level of scripture. And we inspect it to determine whether, and to what extent it reflects a reasonable application of God's constant word to the changing situation of man.

I've said a lot. I am convinced that "scripture" is the 66 books we have. No more or less. But I don't see any of these passages defining that as true. Just defining the rational bounds of what would be included.

And clearly speaking against the nonsense that Lee taught.

Thanks for trying. I'll just keep it to myself next time it comes up.