What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

If you would prefer to view these 12 foundations as foundations of the city then the "fellowship of the apostles" would be akin to the foundation of the city which must be on "the proper ground". Since this foundation runs to the wall it would indicate that the fellowship of the apostles fully covers the "proper ground".

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you would prefer to view these 12 foundations as foundations of the city then the "fellowship of the apostles" would be akin to the foundation of the city which must be on "the proper ground". Since this foundation runs to the wall it would indicate that the fellowship of the apostles fully covers the "proper ground".

That is more logical of an explanation. A glaring exception is that the apostle Paul was not one of the 12. So you would need to adjust the explanation to include the apostle Paul’s writings in the proper ground. Or if you prefer, we could agree that the apostle Paul’s writings were for the building on top of the foundation.

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by 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

A "quote of Witness Lee" includes quotes from John Ingalls and other elders about Witness Lee. I have no interest in quoting them again, they have been referenced numerous times on this forum from JI book Speaking the Truth in Love, and there are writings of other elders that are equally applicable.

There is a quote that I read from Witness Lee in which he thanked the elders for signing the Loyalty Pledge. That pledge is the clearest example of using your position to exercise authority over others. That letter of thanks indicates WL was fully approving of this action and that it was performed with his approval. The letter is published by LSM in one of the elders trainings and has also been fully referenced on this forum.

I have also shared my first hand experience of listening to Witness Lee's "Perfecting Training" messages. Therefore my sources are John Ingalls, my own witness, writings from other elders, and an LSM publication of one of Witness Lee's Elder trainings.

I am not interested in doing anymore than that unless LSM sues me for libel. Perhaps Indiana, Terry or Ohio are interested.

But I find your request disingenuous. You have chastised me for providing too many references concerning Ed Marks, and you have chastised me for being repetitive. It seems fulfilling this latest request of yours would be foolish.

Also, I would like to point out to many who may not be aware of the inner workings of LSM, I was involved in the editing of WL's spoken messages into written messages and am well aware of how thoroughly and completely they were edited to remove many of the the things we heard him say repeatedly. Therefore if you want to get the most accurate and precise quotes of these errors of his you have to actually listen to the messages and not just read the written word. This was the mistake that previous lawsuits have made. They should have poured over the videotapes, but they didn't have the budget.

[Steel]

As I read the comments on this thread I mourn the ignorance being spoken.

Who does scripture tells us is the foundation of all creation?

God Himself, that's who.

And is it normal to build a foundation on top of a foundation? . . . Of course not.

Here is some excellent speaking on the matter of the reality of our foundation... And try not to dismiss the testimony that comes at the end... As it speaks about how God's ways often do not look like what we think God's ways should look like...

http://web.prtel.com/kcpage/Jesus%20...dation%203.htm

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, I would like to point out to many who may not be aware of the inner workings of LSM, I was involved in the editing of WL's spoken messages into written messages and am well aware of how thoroughly and completely they were edited to remove many of the the things we heard him say repeatedly. Therefore if you want to get the most accurate and precise quotes of these errors of his you have to actually listen to the messages and not just read the written word. This was the mistake that previous lawsuits have made. They should have poured over the videotapes, but they didn't have the budget.

They should have also talked to former members.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by 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

Drake,

No offense, but this seems like willful ignorance. The Recovery manifestly operates under the presumption that Lee's speaking is the final word of an Apostle.

Just read http://afaithfulword.org, which was created to put down the Midwest US "rebellion." It is nothing but "Brother Lee said this and Brother Lee said that." By Lee's word the Blendeds judged and executed the Midwest churches which only wanted to have the freedom to shepherd their members as they felt the Lord was leading them. They should have called it "thefinalword.org," that is, Lee's, according to the interpretation of the Blendeds.

Lee implied his apostleship and MOTA status again and again. I heard him do it myself. But he was also coy about it, saying just enough to get the message across while retaining plausible deniability. The Blendeds definitely got the message. What do you think gives them the boldness to be such bullies? Of course it didn't make it plainly into print--they were cleverer than that. But the idea and attitude is the very glue that holds the movement together, at least in the US. If you are in Britain or something, maybe it's a little different. But you ought to know enough about the movement you are in to know better.


It's a little weird that we have LCMers here defending the existence of latter day Apostles, yet denying that the Recovery believed that Lee's presumed Apostleship gave him authority over churches.

What's the point of defending the existence of latter day Apostles if not to defend that Lee was one?
What's the point of being an Apostle if not to have authority over churches?