What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Evangelical]

Then the bible should record ALL of the apostles as working miracles.

It doesn't.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then the bible should record ALL of the apostles as working miracles.

It doesn't.

That is a very weak argument.

If Apostles are not supposed to be ABLE to work miracles then the Bible would have never recorded that this ability is the "proof of a true Apostle." (2 Cor 12:12)

Note, I did not say I knew all Apostles worked miracles. I said they should be ABLE to work miracles, so when tested by a church they could prove it (Rev 2:2). How else could they be tested?

You can claim Lee was an Apostle all you want. You can believe it if you want. But you have no ground to expect anyone else to believe it, nor do you have ground to hold anyone in less esteem for not believing it.

Expecting people to revere any latter day person as an Apostle is divisive.

[Cal]

Okay, suppose I'm in the lead in a local church and some Blended brother comes along and says our church has to start doing things differently.

So I ask him, "What are your credentials for giving me orders?"

And he replies, "I'm an Apostle." (Note: This could be Lee or Benson or Menuro or Titus Chu or anyone else.)

So I say, in light of Rev 2:2, "Prove it."

What proof can he give? That he worked with Nee or Lee? That he knows "God's economy" inside out? That he's on the payroll at LSM? That he has the force of the movement behind him so he can make life difficult for me if I don't comply?

Just what is the proof of such a claim?

Let's face it. In the LCM it's all about agreed-upon conventions mixed with intimidation. But those conventions are not Biblical. They are all dependent upon accepting a logical construct that is really a house of cards built on shifting sand.

As I said, the only way an extra-local person can command a local church is when that local church has accepted that convention voluntarily. There is no authority from God that directly authorizes such a thing to which the church must submit.

LCMers exist in a state of befuddlement and false assumptions, and that by design. That's the only reason they allow people like the Blendeds to order them around.

If they don't have the self-respect to push back, they deserve what they get.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, suppose I'm in the lead in a local church and some Blended brother comes along and says our church has to start doing things differently.

So I ask him, "What are your credentials for giving me orders?"

And he replies, "I'm an Apostle." (Note: This could be Lee or Benson or Menuro or Titus Chu or anyone else.)

So I say, in light of Rev 2:2, "Prove it."

12“The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”

1. with all perseverance — The “false apostles” were hirelings who cared nothing for the sheep— at the first sign of trouble they would quickly abandon the truth. We saw this repeatedly with WL. Max, Sister’s rebellion, JI, etc. Every time there was trouble WL was willing to throw anyone and everyone to the wolves.

2. Signs and wonders — the miracles were a testimony from God so that the church could conclude that Paul’s gospel was true.

3. Financial independence — Paul ends the section with “forgive me this wrong”. By the time false apostles, false brethren, and divisive brethren had finished with Paul his financial independence was turned into a scandal. How absurd is this? The false apostles make merchandise of the saints, so much so that not having a financial motive is made out to be “scandalous”!

Obviously the NT gives us the tools to "prove" who is and who is not an apostle.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That is a very weak argument.

If Apostles are not supposed to be ABLE to work miracles then the Bible would have never recorded that this ability is the "proof of a true Apostle." (2 Cor 12:12)

Note, I did not say I knew all Apostles worked miracles. I said they should be ABLE to work miracles, so when tested by a church they could prove it (Rev 2:2). How else could they be tested?

You can claim Lee was an Apostle all you want. You can believe it if you want. But you have no ground to expect anyone else to believe it, nor do you have ground to hold anyone in less esteem for not believing it.

Expecting people to revere any latter day person as an Apostle is divisive.

What sort of miracles are we talking about here, that Paul for example, could have produced on demand to prove he was an apostle. The old coin behind the ear trick? egg in a bottle? I believe Witness Lee could have worked miracles if he wanted to.

There are other metrics we could use. For example, Witness Lee produced hundreds of churches, and Paul by my count produced about 20. It's a miracle in itself to produce so many churches in different countries.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What sort of miracles are we talking about here, that Paul for example, could have produced on demand to prove he was an apostle. The old coin behind the ear trick? egg in a bottle? I believe Witness Lee could have worked miracles if he wanted to.

There are other metrics we could use. For example, Witness Lee produced hundreds of churches, and Paul by my count produced about 20. It's a miracle in itself to produce so many churches in different countries.

Clearly Paul was talking about extraordinary acts of the supernatural, which is why he used three different words to describe them: signs, wonders and miracles (mighty deeds). He could have been including his church planting work in this as well, but he clearly was including other things as well. To conclude he wasn't including signs of supernatural power seems unreasonable.

At any rate, 2 Cor 12:12 severely weakens the claim of Apostleship by anyone who cannot work "wonders." Could it be that this was exactly what God wanted to achieve? Could it be that God did not want latter day men going around claiming to have the authority of an Apostle? Could it be he didn't want believers to grant anyone such authority without real proof?

Again, what is the benefit, at this late date in Church history, of claiming someone is an Apostle? All such claims seem to do is divide. They force people to choose sides, which is completely unnecessary. Paul himself did not wish that people would pick him to the exclusion of others, even when he was skeptical of those others' credentials. All he asked was that people at least listen to him some. That's all any of us can ask.

Lee, however, expected people to tune out everyone by him and those he approved of. That was nothing short of megalomania. The rotten fruit of it is there for anyone who has eyes to see.

If someone comes along who can do the things Paul did, like practically rise from the dead, I might be persuaded that he is a true Apostle. Until then, I'll remain unconvinced.

[Drake]

Igzy>”Just what is the proof of such a claim? ”

Igzy,

Paul said in this chapter and the next 13:3 that his apostleship was authenticated by Christ speaking through Paul in weakness and simultaneously speaking to the Corinthians in power. That was the proof of Paul’s apostleship that they didn’t recognize, not the miracles they asked for.

One must examine Pauls whole explanation. He is saying that their insistence on miracles as proof of apostleship was wrong headed forcing him to become foolish. What was foolish? The insistence of performance of miracles ias proof of his apostleship.

Drake

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If someone comes along who can do the things Paul did, like practically rise from the dead, I might be persuaded that he is a true Apostle. Until then, I'll remain unconvinced.

Let's leave Witness Lee and the LSM for a moment...

C.S. Lewis called the incarnation “the Grand Miracle.” He wrote: “The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation…. Every other miracle prepares for this, or exhibits this, or results from this…. It was the central event in the history of the Earth—the very thing that the whole story has been about” (Miracles, chapter 14).

And why did God work this "...Grand Miracle..."?

For the purpose of being able to work His greatest miracle... That of His transformation of fallen humanity, to that of uplifted humanity (Ephesians 2).

And uplifted humanity has no need of seeing outward miracles... Because we see God... And are one with God... And even express God.

The Israelites saw many of God's miracles and still did not believe Him.

Jesus' disciples saw many miracles and still did not believe Him.

And yet, Igzy thinks that if he could only see a miracle he would be able to accept something about the person who worked the miracle... But in saying this, has only exposed little or no regard for the greatest of all miracles that is within every born again believer in Christ Jesus.

This is the folly that someone holds to when they no longer are holding to the God that saved them... But instead are holding to their assumed knowledge of this God.

This is the truth that scripture reveals to us...

We can know the truth about anyone and anything by simply abiding in our regenerated spirit... Where God Himself abides one with us, and we one with Him.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Steel

Let's leave Witness Lee and the LSM for a moment...

C.S. Lewis called the incarnation “the Grand Miracle.” He wrote: “The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation…. Every other miracle prepares for this, or exhibits this, or results from this…. It was the central event in the history of the Earth—the very thing that the whole story has been about” (Miracles, chapter 14).

And why did God work this "...Grand Miracle..."?

For the purpose of being able to work His greatest miracle... That of His transformation of fallen humanity, to that of uplifted humanity (Ephesians 2).

I agree. To me the biggest miracle is giving men a new heart.

Originally Posted by Steel

And uplifted humanity has no need of seeing outward miracles... Because we see God... And are one with God... And even express God.

The Israelites saw many of God's miracles and still did not believe Him.

Jesus' disciples saw many miracles and still did not believe Him.

And yet, Igzy thinks that if he could only see a miracle he would be able to accept something about the person who worked the miracle... But in saying this, has only exposed little or no regard for the greatest of all miracles that is within every born again believer in Christ Jesus.

I don't think that is a fair representation of Igzy's position.

Originally Posted by Steel

This is the folly that someone holds to when they no longer are holding to the God that saved them... But instead are holding to their assumed knowledge of this God.

This is the truth that scripture reveals to us...

We can know the truth about anyone and anything by simply abiding in our regenerated spirit... Where God Himself abides one with us, and we one with Him.

I think the folly here is creating a phony position for Igzy which he did not present.

The topic is "the boundary of the church". You can argue that the "boundary" in a figure is the wall of the NJ which is built on the 12 foundations of the 12 apostles. Therefore, in a figure these 12 apostles are very important in understanding the boundary of the church.

Igzy has stated that he believes "The Apostles" refer to the 12 who fit the criteria he has cited from the NT. He is ambivalent towards whether or not we still have apostles with a small letter a, but when you are referring to "The 12" who were instrumental in turning the age and also giving us the NT, then it is a very specific group.

What history has proven to be folly is to pretend there has not been any contentious debate over what constitutes the "fellowship of the apostles" and what doesn't.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy has stated that he believes "The Apostles" refer to the 12 who fit the criteria he has cited from the NT. He is ambivalent towards whether or not we still have apostles with a small letter a, but when you are referring to "The 12" who were instrumental in turning the age and also giving us the NT, then it is a very specific group..

ZNP,

The 12 are special but so are the Apostle Paul and all the little “a” apostles. If we only had the writings of the 12 for the NT there would be a pretty big difference from what we have today. God gave them as gifts to the Body for its building up.

1 Corinthians 1 “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;”

Clearly this debate started a very long time ago.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree. To me the biggest miracle is giving men a new heart.

I don't think that is a fair representation of Igzy's position.

Thank you, Z. I agree with you.

There are different kinds of miracles. Surely being born again is a miracle. Being able to live in righteousness, joy and peace with other believers is a miracle.

But the "wonders" Paul spoke of are ones which identify the person doing them as an "Apostle." If helping people become born again or facilitating an environment of righteous, joyful and peaceful fellowship are those kinds of miracles then we are all apostles. If you want to go there, then fine. But that puts us all on the same level as you expect us to view Witness Lee. So that's a wash.

Paul was clearly talking about wondrous works that set him and other true Apostles apart from average believers.

Think about what it was like back then. There was no New Testament. All the believers had was the Holy Spirit and the leadership of special men who had been with Jesus. A lot of people were going around claiming to be Apostles. How could the Church differentiate the true from the false?

The Bible seems to show us two ways: (1) True Apostles had a close association with the physical Jesus or with someone who had such an association, (2) True Apostles had special spiritual empowerment which could manifest in highly unusual supernatural phenomenon.

In short, there was no question who was an Apostle if you knew what to look for.

Now Lee comes along. All of a sudden we are supposed to start looking at him like he is a Paul? Really? Just like that? Why? And what's the point, anyway? That is, other than to try to control people?

And there should be no surprise that it all added up to exactly what happened. A small faction of "true believers" decided without real proof and for everyone else that Lee was an Apostle. This marginalized them, and they responded in classy fashion by saying everyone else is "blind," "worldly," yada, yada.

And that's what's always going to happen in that kind of situation.

Again, what's the point of claiming Lee is an Apostle but to try to force everyone else into following him? Why can't you just treat him like other teachers are treated these days? Listen to them if you feel to. If you hear God speaking to you through a teacher, be thankful.

Why do you have to try to belittle everyone who sees things a little differently? Seems a lot like pride to me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Steel

And yet, Igzy thinks that if he could only see a miracle he would be able to accept something about the person who worked the miracle... But in saying this, has only exposed little or no regard for the greatest of all miracles that is within every born again believer in Christ Jesus.

This is the folly that someone holds to when they no longer are holding to the God that saved them... But instead are holding to their assumed knowledge of this God.

This is the truth that scripture reveals to us...

We can know the truth about anyone and anything by simply abiding in our regenerated spirit... Where God Himself abides one with us, and we one with Him.

Signs and wonders were a divine endorsement upon the initial apostles. Their many sufferings for God and the Gospel were also a proof of their apostleship. We also can know the apostles by their fruit. Besides these, there are many other tests in scripture regarding the life and character of ministers.

These evidences provided the Ephesians and all the early church with the ability to test those who claim to be apostles, and expose the false ones.

But as Steel has informed us, supposedly "We can know the truth about anyone and anything by simply abiding in our regenerated spirit." I would place a huge question mark on this because it precludes the fact that many believers in the N.T. and in church history have been deceived by false teachers, and because it is contrary to scriptural evidence.

I John 2.27 does teach us that "we have an anointing which teaches us concerning all things in order for us to abide in Him." But this individual anointing does not guarantee that we can know and test all ministers, and has proven to be untrustworthy and far too subjective on a personal level. Rather scriptures inform us there is "safety in a multitude of counselors."

Regarding the unspoken subject of our discussion here, W. Lee has failed the test of apostleship. Admittedly he was a gifted minister, but his many exclusive teachings have been rejected by renowned men of God in the body of Christ. His character and behavior have been exposed by many members who knew him within the LC's as contrary to the upright standards of the N.T.