What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[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.

[Drake]

ZNP>”Therefore we both agree that the fellowship of the Apostles is the boundary of the church.”

ZNP,

That is not the most complete way to express it. Rather, they are the foundation according to Revelation 21 and something is built on top of it. “Boundary” does not convey that thought very well.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”Therefore we both agree that the fellowship of the Apostles is the boundary of the church.”

ZNP,

That is not the most complete way to express it. Rather, they are the foundation according to Revelation 21 and something is built on top of it. “Boundary” does not convey that thought very well.

Drake

The boundary of a city according to Witness Lee's theology is a critical component to the "boundary of the church". I started that thread to examine this. Since the wall surrounding the NJ can be considered "the boundary" of the NJ I am referring to it that way, not because it conveys the thought very well but because it is analogous to Witness Lee's point.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The boundary of a city according to Witness Lee's theology is a critical component to the "boundary of the church". I started that thread to examine this. Since the wall surrounding the NJ can be considered "the boundary" of the NJ I am referring to it that way, not because it conveys the thought very well but because it is analogous to Witness Lee's point.

Actually it is not. The boundry of a city is lateral and temporary. The foundations of a city are something to be built upon vertically and are permanent.

It’s fine for you to see it the way you do, but I never have heard Bros Nee or Lee refer to the foundations of the New Jerusalem as a boundry. If you have then provide the reference and assuming you are accurate I will concede the point.

Otherwise, you are conflating boundry of a local church with foundations of the New Jerusalem.

Drake

[Drake]

ZNP>”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.”

ZNP,

Please provide the quote by Witness Lee in context so we can assess it for ourselves.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”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.”

ZNP,

Please provide the quote by Witness Lee in context so we can assess it for ourselves.

Thanks
Drake

Please provide the quote by ZNP so we can assess it for ourselves.

You have been asked before to use the QUOTE feature of this forum, and you refuse. Yet you demand quotes from others.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”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.”

ZNP,

Please provide the quote by Witness Lee in context so we can assess it for ourselves.

Thanks
Drake

I had hesitated since it could be viewed by some to be "repetitive" (I think you complained of this once). But you are right, for those who have not read the other threads on this forum it would help to provide some quotes.

1. Boasting -- I personally heard Witness Lee repeatedly talk about poor Christianity and how there were not any books of spiritual value being written today, only his. However, I was aware of saints in Houston and Irving that had extensive collections of Christian books not published by LSM (I discovered this when I helped them move). However, they were far too intimidated to reference them or quote them in meetings even though Houston and Irving were where quoting footnotes as a "testimony" had become all the rage. These saints were so intimidated they actually apologized to us as we moved their books and asked that we not mention they owned them.

I have also read similar testimonies from other brothers like John Ingalls and other elders who testified what it was like behind closed doors. Their testimonies were consistent with what I had seen and came across as boasting and arrogant.

I was also present when Witness Lee boasted about all the new terms he had coined.

2. Controlling -- I guess the best example of this was the loyalty pledge that Ray Graver and Benson Phillips strong armed the elders into signing. To my understanding of the NT this is something strongly forbidden in the book of James ("But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment." James 5:2). In my understanding the burden of James is to counteract the cultic influences like the Judaizers that he had been ensnared with.

I don't have any first hand experiences of this behavior except my observations of the "Perfecting Training" which appeared to me to be Witness Lee pulling some leading elder up onto the platform to berate him under the guise of "perfecting". Since I was brand new to the LRC I decided to simply agree that I didn't understand. 40 years later I feel I do understand. He was holding people up to public ridicule and shame with the pretense of "perfecting" as a way to control others. Abuse of power.

[Drake]

ZNP,

Please provide the reference from Witness Lees speaking for these quotes below..

.... using his “position” as “the apostle” the exercise authority over others.

Since you “quoted” then you must be referring to a quote from Witness Lee, so where did he say that so we can read it for ourselves?

If it is just your opinion you are entitled to it but when you quote as a reference you are saying you have source material.

Drake