What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

We both agree that to resolve this issue we need to look at the NT. You have repeatedly used scripture to defend your position. Therefore we both agree that the fellowship of the Apostles is the boundary of the church.

So unless you are also claiming that there have been new revelations in scripture that are outside of the fellowship of the apostles, brought in by little a apostles, we are not disagreeing about anything.

I agree with the teaching that we still have the gift of apostles to this day, but I also agree with Igzy that you have to distinguish those from the first 12. I do not believe that scripture is still being written (except of course for the concept that the book of Acts is not finished). I also agree with Igzy that someone who is an apostle would not use such a gift as a way of boasting or exercising authority over others. There are some very troubling quotes of Witness Lee that come across as boasting and using his "position" as "the apostle" to exercise authority over others.

Finally, there is good reason why the "Jews require a sign". Their history is full of God doing signs and wonders as a testimony that it was God who was leading them. Joseph was brought to his position as the right hand man to Pharaoh due to God's signs and wonders. Moses led them out of slavery with signs and wonders. Joshua led them into the good land with signs and wonders. Therefore, if the same God is now leading them onward it makes sense He would testify of this with signs and wonders. Christ crucified is a sign and wonder, but it is also a stumbling block to the Jews. It is wisdom and power, but to the Greeks it "appears" to be foolish and weak. I think Paul's point is that this is similar to those who rejected Jesus because "can anything good come out of Nazareth". Superficially He was from Nazareth, had they only dug a little deeper and learned he was born in Bethlehem, his genealogy, the prophecies at his birth, and the other events.

[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.

[Cal]

Lee was supposed to be a game changer. Into the world inundated with "fallen Christianity," the story goes, this lone little man was raised up by God to right the ship of the kingdom. So, much like Jesus and the Apostles, Lee was to change the age. But why should have anyone believed such claims?

For that matter, why should have anyone believed the claims of Jesus and the Apostles? Religion was established. Judaism was the faith of the day and had been for centuries. Into that situation, these Johnny-Come-Latelys appear and start telling everyone everything is being done wrong, that the old order is being thrown out, a new day has begun, and that they are just the ones to tell everyone how to go about it.

Now, why should have anyone believed them? What was the sign of the authority they claimed to possess? Simple. They could work miracles that only God could empower them to do. That was the evidence that they had the authority to redefine things. To authorize such major changes, they had to have something more than just their word and character, and that's why God gave them supernatural power. Even Jesus needed this to prove himself.

Lee didn't have that. So why should anyone believe his grandiose claims? In fact, I would argue that without such validation we are foolish to do so.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

And let's make it clear why this was so important. Many so-called "apostles" came from "headquarters" in Jerusalem, like those who came to Antioch "from James" (see Galatians 2.11-15) who brought "another gospel" to the Gentile churches. These ones were so persuasive and deceptive that even Peter (Cephas) and Barnabas were fooled, at least temporarily. That's why Paul called these ones "false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ, and no wonder because Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light." (II Cor. 11.13-14)

Today, we have the New Testament and the entirety of church history to educate us, and still the children of God are fooled by those coming to them and, in effect, rewriting scriptures with another gospel. In the Recovery these days, we have men in charge of a publishing house, called something pseudo-spiritual like "Blended Brothers," who can send their people out to LC's with mandates foreign to scripture, and based on the writings of W. Lee. Yes, another gospel!

These ones have thus become no different than the "super apostles" which Paul confronted during his ministry. Their authority is not from God, neither do they have the evidence of apostleship, yet they exercised a false "deputy authority" over workers, elders, deacons, and saints throughout the Midwest. They sued elders, stole meeting halls, and divided LC's, bringing their deluded followers into bondage, making a show of them in the flesh. (Gal 2.5; 6.12)

[Evangelical]

What is being discussed about apostles and miracles is not unlike a problem the Reformation faced. The Catholic church was rife with miracles and signs and wonders, which apparently confirmed their authenticity, yet Luther and Calvin had to stand upon God's Word alone.

For this reason it is interesting that some are using the "signs and wonders" argument to argue against Witness Lee being an apostle. This is similar to how the Catholics argue against Luther and Calvin for not working any miracles, thus "God does not approve or endorse the Reformation".

While the apostle Paul clearly worked miracles and this was used in some way to confirm his status as an apostle, let us consider that:

- there is no indication that all the apostles worked miracles (e.g. Apollos etc, and any of the other lesser known apostles, there were about 20 that we know of).

- the ability to work miracles is stated in the Bible as a gift separate to and less than the gift of apostleship:

1 Corinthians 12:18:

And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.

It is possible that Paul and other apostles had the gift of miracles as well, but based on 1 Cor 12:18 it must be possible to have only the gift of an apostle and not of miracles, since miracles is listed as a separate gift. It is also possible to work miracles but not have the gift of apostleship.

Notice that the gift of tongues is also in this list - perhaps Paul spoke in tongues the most as he said "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all.", but this does not mean that ALL the apostles had the ability to speak in tongues:

1 Cor 12:30 (NLT)
Do we all have the gift of healing? Do we all have the ability to speak in unknown languages? Do we all have the ability to interpret unknown languages? Of course not!

Based on 1 Cor 12:30 and 1 Cor 12:18 we may infer that not every apostle could work miracles.

[Cal]

I don't think the special Apostles were limited to the 12. But I think they ended after the first generation of believers passed to their rewards and the Canon of the New Testament was finished (not officially canonized, but known and accepted essentially by the Church). If John truly outlived all the other early Apostles, then I think he was the last one.

But this doesn't mean I think the gift of apostleship, i.e. being a sent one, doesn't exist. But these people generally are church planters, not those who run ministries or predominately release teachings. Rick Warren, Joyce Meyer, John Piper, etc. are teachers and sometimes pastors. But I wouldn't call them apostles.

If you read about the question of Apostleship, the predominate question is "do they exist anymore." I think that makes it pretty clear that they don't. It seems if they did then the Church, at least most of the Church, would have no trouble recognizing them. We recognize teachers, pastors and general gifts of leadership. So why wouldn't we recognize an Apostle?

I think the only answer can be that there are really not any, save in a very generic sense.

[Cal]

Evangelical/Drake/Steel,

How did the church in Ephesus test those who claimed to be Apostles but were not?

What was the defining characteristic of the men whom Paul said were false Apostles?

If Paul and the Ephesians could discern who was an Apostle and who wasn't, can we? If so, how?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you read about the question of Apostleship, the predominate question is "do they exist anymore." I think that makes it pretty clear that they don't. It seems if they did then the Church, at least most of the Church, would have no trouble recognizing them. We recognize teachers, pastors and general gifts of leadership. So why wouldn't we recognize an Apostle?

I think the only answer can be that there are really not any, save in a very generic sense.

Yes, by this criteria I think the two witnesses at the end of the age would clearly be recognized as apostles. In my understanding the working of signs and wonders are something that is wholly of God's choice. I also suppose it is indicative of God showing mercy on those who are weak in faith.

[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.