Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[ZNPaaneah]

2 I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false;

In the thread on "the boundary of the church" this question came up and seems to be central to this forum on the ministry of Witness Lee and the impact that had on the Lord's Recovery Churches (LRC).

How do you test and determine that an apostle is false?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay. But he didn’t authorize Paul.

Drake

I am not so sure about that. Here is what Peter said at the end of his last epistle:

"15. And remember, our Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him. —

16. Speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.

1. They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
   
   
2. They could work miracles. (I don't see how you can explain away 2 Cor 12:12.)

The problem with conferring apostleship without those proofs is that it potentially puts far too much power in the hands of unqualified people. As I said, the Church needs more evidence than someone's claim of having an impressive ministry and of having planted churches. Nothing wrong with those things. They are good. But they don't make someone an Apostle in the sense of having God-given extra-local authority.

Thanks Igzy for sharing your views. Though I do not agree with them I appreciate the opportunity to lay out an alternative viewpoint on this topic.

I’ve already addressed your previous assertion that apostles were those who were with the Lord during his earthly ministry. We saw that that is not accurate according to the New Testament record because many of the apostles were given as gifts by the Lord Himself in His ascension and Paul lists several of them by name as indicated in my previous post. Timothy, for instance, was not even circumcised and may have even been too young to be part of the Lord Jesus’s ministry on earth. In your revised point #1 above you say apostles were associated with somebody who was associated with Jesus during his earthly ministry but that is also inaccurate according to the New Testament record because the apostle Paul only came to know the Lord after His ascension. So those apostles affiliated with Paul’s ministry, and mentioned by Paul in his letters were associated with an apostle (Paul) who was not part of the Lords earthly ministry.

But the main purpose of this post is to address your second assertion concerning the evidence of apostleship being miracles and wonders and works of power according to second Corinthian‘s 12:12. Here is why your assumption that evidence of apostleship is validated by those things is incorrect.

First, the apostle Paul said of those things that he performed them because the Corinthians compelled him to prove his apostleship. The Corinthian‘s were questioning his apostleship as compared to the other “super-apostles”. In verse 11, Paul said that he became foolish because they compelled him to prove his apostleship by those very things. He was well pleased in weaknesses, and insults, in necessities, in persecutions, distresses, on behalf of Christ, for when he was weak then he was powerful. Yet the Corinthian‘s wanted some evidence according to the manifestations of the “super apostles“, these works of power, signs, and wonders. Rather than signs and wonders and works of power being proof of apostleship, Paul said to the Corinthian‘s that their request forced him to become foolish and compelled him to perform them but, the real proof of apostleship was that His grace is sufficient and His power is perfected in weakness. This is confirmed again by Paul‘s word in the next chapter, chapter 13, verse three, where he says of them that they seek a proof of the Christ who was speaking in them, and yet his apostleship should have been validated in their mind by the fact that though he was speaking to them in weakness, yet, at the very same time Christ was speaking in them powerfully. That mutual speaking of the speaker, Paul, speaking in weakness, while He also spoke in power in them, is the real proof of apostleship according to the apostle Paul’s persuasive argument to the Corinthians.

However, if someone absolutely insists that the works of power, signs, miracles, etc. are the proof of apostleship, then by the same standard believers must prove they are believers by signs such as casting out demons, speaking with new tongues, picking up serpents, drinking deadly things without harm and laying hands on the sick, for they too, using that same logic, are the signs that follow a bonafide believer. Of course, no one that I know would demand proof that someone is a believer by asking them to drink poison, pick up venomous snakes, or by any of the other items listed. In the same way though signs, wonders, miracles may be manifested in certain situations, those things are not the proof of apostleship, anymore than the things listed in Mark 16:17-18 are proof points that someone is a believer..... or not.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.

1. They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
   
   
2. They could work miracles. (I don't see how you can explain away 2 Cor 12:12.)

The problem with conferring apostleship without those proofs is that it potentially puts far too much power in the hands of unqualified people. As I said, the Church needs more evidence than someone's claim of having an impressive ministry and of having planted churches. Nothing wrong with those things. They are good. But they don't make someone an Apostle in the sense of having God-given extra-local authority.

Now there are a lot of church movements and organizations that, based on mutual agreement, do allow extra-local authority. The Methodists are like this. Methodist church pastors answer to a central authority. They even agree to relocate based on a timetable set up by the organization.

But that is voluntary. And I see no big problem with it if it is. There is difference between that and someone claiming "Apostle" authority directly from God. This was what Lee assumed. And even though Lee coyly avoided claiming to be an Apostle, I think it's safe to say he believed he was. If you believe you are the MOTA, you have to believe you are an Apostle. Anyway, his followers believed it.

So the thought was, Lee is an Apostle like Paul, so if you don't follow him you are rebelling against God. That's a whole lot different than saying, "I'm going to submit to the Methodist arrangement as a personal choice." But what were Lee's credentials based upon? Nothing but a subjective opinion about him. And that's not enough.

Again, I think history has shown us in no uncertain terms that conferring Apostleship including the kind of authority Lee claimed causes nothing but problems. It doesn't accomplish anything positive, and it causes a lot of damage. I think that's why God included 2 Cor 12:12 in the Bible.

Why wasn't Lee content to be a traveling teacher and author like most other teachers in the Church? Because he wasn't content with having a ministry. He wanted to control things.

If you like Lee and his ministry and want to follow it, that's your business. If you think God generally wants to everyone follow him because he was an Apostle, I think you are deceived. That goes even more for the current Blendeds, or whatever they are called now.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.

1. They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
   
   
2. They could work miracles. (I don't see how you can explain away 2 Cor 12:12.)

The problem with conferring apostleship without those proofs is that it potentially puts far too much power in the hands of unqualified people.

Can you explain how the claim to being an apostle puts power in someone's hands?

I understand that Peter and Paul exhibited power, but it wasn't a result of their claim to being apostles. I also understand that if some small splinter group is affected by a personality cult they could give power to someone claiming to be an apostle, but again, the error there is in giving this man power, something that is prohibited in the NT.

If someone claims to be an evangelist it may or may not be true, but I don't see how that claim gives them power. Likewise with a prophet, teacher, etc.

It seems to my understanding of your position that you aren't really bothered by the idea that we have different gifted members for the perfecting of the saints, but rather that someone wields undo power and influence. I agree with the concern over undo power and influence but think the claim to being an apostle is merely an expression of deceit.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can you explain how the claim to being an apostle puts power in someone's hands?

Good grief, I thought I made this clear a long time ago! This is all about avoiding the abuse of presumed authority.

According to the LCM, apostles have the authority to command multiple churches. We all know that the LCM believed Lee had the authority to command every church on earth, probably including all the non-LCM groups as well.

Now my question is, would the Lord give that much power to on individual without giving the Church a sure-fire way to confirm that person's apostleship? I say no.

The LCM confers it to Lee because they want to be under his authority. Well, I'm not so eager for that myself, so I want more confirmation.

I fail to see why this point is so hard to understand.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can you explain how the claim to being an apostle puts power in someone's hands?

This is a twisting. It's backwards.

It is God who provides evidences.

[awareness]

Okay I've started at the OP. And yes I'm ashamed that I've made points that were made in the opening post (left below). But now I think I can make sensible points, perchance.

Originally Posted by Igzy

But what were Lee's credentials based upon? Nothing but a subjective opinion about him. And that's not enough.

It was we, Lee's followers, that swelled Lee's head up like a Puffer Fish, into an apostle. We, the royal we, the we of yesteryear, and presently, around the world, that provides Lee's apostleship bona fides.

And it is enough, for Lee followers ; and both past and present followers are complicit in doing it. If all, or enough, followers fall away, Lee's house of cards all fall down ... so in the end Lee's movement was not of God (in the sense of the apostle Paul, and the others).

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you like Lee and his ministry and want to follow it, that's your business. If you think God generally wants to everyone follow him because he was an Apostle, I think you are deceived. That goes even more for the current Blendeds, or whatever they are called now.

If Lee was the apostle, what are the Blendeds? Are they Apostolic succession?

Harold



------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.

1. They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
   
   
2. They could work miracles. (I don't see how you can explain away 2 Cor 12:12.)

The problem with conferring apostleship without those proofs is that it potentially puts far too much power in the hands of unqualified people. As I said, the Church needs more evidence than someone's claim of having an impressive ministry and of having planted churches. Nothing wrong with those things. They are good. But they don't make someone an Apostle in the sense of having God-given extra-local authority.

Now there are a lot of church movements and organizations that, based on mutual agreement, do allow extra-local authority. The Methodists are like this. Methodist church pastors answer to a central authority. They even agree to relocate based on a timetable set up by the organization.

But that is voluntary. And I see no big problem with it if it is. There is difference between that and someone claiming "Apostle" authority directly from God. This was what Lee assumed. And even though Lee coyly avoided claiming to be an Apostle, I think it's safe to say he believed he was. If you believe you are the MOTA, you have to believe you are an Apostle. Anyway, his followers believed it.

So the thought was, Lee is an Apostle like Paul, so if you don't follow him you are rebelling against God. That's a whole lot different than saying, "I'm going to submit to the Methodist arrangement as a personal choice." But what were Lee's credentials based upon? Nothing but a subjective opinion about him. And that's not enough.

Again, I think history has shown us in no uncertain terms that conferring Apostleship including the kind of authority Lee claimed causes nothing but problems. It doesn't accomplish anything positive, and it causes a lot of damage. I think that's why God included 2 Cor 12:12 in the Bible.

Why wasn't Lee content to be a traveling teacher and author like most other teachers in the Church? Because he wasn't content with having a ministry. He wanted to control things.

If you like Lee and his ministry and want to follow it, that's your business. If you think God generally wants to everyone follow him because he was an Apostle, I think you are deceived. That goes even more for the current Blendeds, or whatever they are called now.

[Cal]

The question is, what is the point of believing Lee was an apostle? So that people will accept his teachings and the Church will benefit? People accepted Rick Warren's teachings much more than Lee's. Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life is the best selling non-fiction book of all time. Nobody had to believe that Rick Warren was an apostle for that to happen.

The reason Drake and those like him want people to believe Lee was an apostle is to confer to him the authority to order the Church around, and thus confirm their own decisions to let him define their lives. I.e. misery loves company. Lee couldn't convince enough people by the power of his teachings, so he has to co-opt the authority of an apostle to intimidate people into following him. For this cause he has the willing accomplices like Drake and other stubborn true believers, who say to themselves, If I have to follow Lee then everyone else does too.

Make no mistake, they are not arguing for the existence of latter day apostles for any other reason but to defend the supposed authority of their guy(s).

Again, a common sense view of the Scripture and of history shows us it is very unwise to consider people like Witness Lee to be apostles. The Church-at-large understands this. Those that think otherwise will continue to remain fringe operators, and people will continue to be hurt because of them, which the true believers will sweep under the rug and rationalize away. I post here to try to somehow push against that.


A few years ago I was in a small town in California and was approached by three young Mormon men. They were very nice and by the end I was almost convinced they were true Christians, and they might have been. They were humble, loving and genuine. I have to say they were more pleasant than I was. But they were convinced that they were right and Jesus was not God. Still they weren't exclusive. They believed we were all in the same family of God.

I didn't think of this at the time, but if I ever get into another conversation like that I'm going to ask, "If we are all believers, all God's children, then what makes you think 95% of the believers are wrong about Jesus and only you are right? What gives that reassurance? "

Of course the only reason they believed it was that was what they were used to, what they identified with, and no one wants to admit that the beliefs that define them on the deepest level are wrong.

LCMers are the same way. What gives them the reassurance that apostles with the kind of authority they confer to Lee still exist? The overwhelming majority of the Church doesn't believe it. So what makes the LCM right and others in the vast majority wrong? Do they really believe they understand the Bible so much better than everyone else?

So to me they are just like those Mormon boys. They believe what they believe because confirming what they've always believed is easier than admitting they might be mistaken. There is probably an element of wanting to be special as well. But either way, the odds of the LCM being right about its fringe beliefs are about the same as that the Mormons are right about Jesus not being God. Slim to none.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay I've started at the OP. And yes I'm ashamed that I've made points that were made in the opening post (left below). But now I think I can make sensible points, perchance.


It was we, Lee's followers, that swelled Lee's head up like a Puffer Fish, into an apostle. We, the royal we, the we of yesteryear, and presently, around the world, that provides Lee's apostleship bona fides.

And it is enough, for Lee followers ; and both past and present followers are complicit in doing it. If all, or enough, followers fall away, Lee's house of cards all fall down ... so in the end Lee's movement was not of God (in the sense of the apostle Paul, and the others).


If Lee was the apostle, what are the Blendeds? Are they Apostolic succession?

Harold



------------------------------------

In the word of God there is no such thing as Apostolic succession,there were no successors to the original 12 Apostles,appointed by the Lord Jesus or any apostles appointed by the 12 to be their successors. When you read the epistles of Peter,Paul,Jude,John they state that it was the last days and evil workers were already making inroads into the church,and Paul said after his departure that grevious wolves would come in not sparing the flock. When studying early church history its clear. And the prophetic revelation of the seven churches shows a steady decline. I'm not trying to stir up anything, just my take on Apostles.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JB482

In the word of God there is no such thing as Apostolic succession,there were no successors to the original 12 Apostles,appointed by the Lord Jesus or any apostles appointed by the 12 to be their successors. When you read the epistles of Peter,Paul,Jude,John they state that it was the last days and evil workers were already making inroads into the church,and Paul said after his departure that grevious wolves would come in not sparing the flock. When studying early church history its clear. And the prophetic revelation of the seven churches shows a steady decline. I'm not trying to stir up anything, just my take on Apostles.

That's my view as well. The apostles were chosen by the Lord. Paul was evidently chosen post-resurrection, and this was affirmed by the others.

The apostles wrote the NT. (Luke, Matthew, Mark were written under the aegis of the apostles; some say that parts of Paul, Peter, and John were likewise written 'en amanuensis' as well [on behalf of]).

Compare that to today's self-styled and self-appointed 'apostles'. No comparison whatsoever. Jesus taught, "if you want to be great in the kingdom, claim to be the least"; the ones who claim for themselves apostolic privilege are by definition the least of all, because they claim to greatness.

The New Apostolic Reformation is a good example. I think one of them was once a Lee acolyte.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JB482

In the word of God there is no such thing as Apostolic succession,there were no successors to the original 12 Apostles,appointed by the Lord Jesus or any apostles appointed by the 12 to be their successors. When you read the epistles of Peter,Paul,Jude,John they state that it was the last days and evil workers were already making inroads into the church,and Paul said after his departure that grevious wolves would come in not sparing the flock. When studying early church history its clear. And the prophetic revelation of the seven churches shows a steady decline. I'm not trying to stir up anything, just my take on Apostles.

I agree with this JB and it is worth repeating.

Apostolic succession is a serious error in understanding the Lord's NT arrangement.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am not so sure about that. Here is what Peter said at the end of his last epistle:

"15. And remember, our Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him. —

16. Speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction."

How about "commended". Peter commended Paul to us as writing with the wisdom given to him by God, and he commended Paul's writings as part of scripture.

But as far as "authorized" I would have to go with Paul that it was Jesus who called him and sent him out.

If we all agree that Peter didn't authorize Paul, that also means Peter didn't authorize any of the NT writers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How about "commended". Peter commended Paul to us as writing with the wisdom given to him by God, and he commended Paul's writings as part of scripture.

But as far as "authorized" I would have to go with Paul that it was Jesus who called him and sent him out.

If we all agree that Peter didn't authorize Paul, that also means Peter didn't authorize any of the NT writers.

I think we can safely say that Paul authorized Luke's Gospel and Acts.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think we can safely say that Paul authorized Luke's Gospel and Acts.

Paul was not present for the events in Luke’s gospel.... and also not present for the events in the first half of Acts.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Paul was not present for the events in Luke’s gospel.... and also not present for the events in the first half of Acts.

Drake

Duh!!!

Neither was Luke!

But are you now saying that Luke did not research and author all of these events, and did so without Paul's encouragement and approval?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How about "commended". Peter commended Paul to us as writing with the wisdom given to him by God, and he commended Paul's writings as part of scripture.

But as far as "authorized" I would have to go with Paul that it was Jesus who called him and sent him out.

If we all agree that Peter didn't authorize Paul, that also means Peter didn't authorize any of the NT writers.

I agree with this.

Drake

[Cal]

The LCM positions on the ground of the church and apostles are both designed to exercise control over people.

Their position on the ground of the church says "you have to meet with us the way we say."

Their position on apostles says "you have to follow and submit to the people we say are apostles."

It's all about controlling people. Clear as day to me. They'll deny it until they turn blue. But it's the truth.

I guess some of them no longer even realize they are being controlled. Someday God is going to set them free, and the first thing they'll say is, "I knew something wasn't right! But I was afraid to say or do anything about it."

Fear is the enemy. And fear is one of the LCM's basic tools for controlling people. Don't let them control you. Put your foot down. Refuse to be intimidated.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LCM positions on the ground of the church and apostles are both designed to exercise control over people.

That tends to be how it is. In the LC you're more likely to see fear of man rather than fear of God. Of course it's termed in a pseudo-spiritual way "be one with the brothers".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Fear is the enemy. And fear is one of the LCM's basic tools for controlling people. Don't let them control you. Put your foot down. Refuse to be intimidated.

And get the boot.

[Evangelical]

Many protestants believe that the "bible replaced the apostles". Actually they are wrong because in history it was the Catholic bishopry which replaced the apostles. Nothing to do with the Bible. There is no Bible verse which says "the bishops of the Catholic church will now replace the apostles". This idea continued with the Lutheran and Anglican churches, unchallenged. Those bishops eventually became pastors or senior pastors in Protestant evangelicalism, unchallenged. This idea of bishopry replacing apostles has never really changed since the Catholics started it. Today the idea is that "pastors replaced the apostles". Pastors function in more or less the same way as Catholic bishops.

Today the function which most closely resembles the work that Paul and other early apostles did is the missionaries. Missionaries go to unreached places, preach the gospel, sometimes with signs and wonders, and plant and build churches. Today the word missionary is used to describe a person who probably would have been called an apostle in the Bible times. No one would call a missionary an apostle today because pastors who replaced apostles in the church believe "apostles don't exist anymore". Bishops, priests or pastors replaced apostles in the church. Missionaries replaced apostles in the field. But clearly the function and need for apostles remains.

It depends on whether we believe the Catholic bishops should have replaced the apostles or not. If the Catholics were right and the bishops replaced the apostles, then every denomination which is headed by a senior pastor is right. If the work of an apostle is still needed today, then to presume that apostles don't exist anymore or that God replaced them with anything or did away with them is very shortsighted and missing the bigger picture of God's plan. To say that we don't need or have apostles today is to also say that we don't need evangelism, miracles, planting churches etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Your argument that Paul was the last apostle has no scriptural basis

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is also no scriptural basis that the New Testament is scripture.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many protestants believe that the "bible replaced the apostles".

Apostle Paul in Eph. 2.20 tells us that "the household of God, the church, is being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." This clearly identifies an accomplished foundation work of God's house. For two millennia the church has readily identified certain initial apostles as both patterns for the church and writers of New Testament scripture. Yes they were "sent ones," but more than that, they were literally Ambassadors for Jesus Christ Himself. Unfortunately today, of these original 12 ambassadors plus Paul, we really only have the writings and work of Peter, John, and Paul.

On the other hand Paul also told us in Eph 4.11 "that He gave some apostles ..." clearly informing us that the Head of the body will continue to give gifts for building up. Church history is filled with gifted men, including genuine apostles, who did not lay another foundation, but built well on the original apostles. Their anointed ministries made alive what we know as scripture. In this regard, I agree with the statement, if properly understood, that "the New Testament has replaced the apostles," not the apostles acc. to 4.11, but the apostles acc. to 2.20.

How can we not make a distinction? Does anyone really believe that "Andronicus and Junia notable among the apostles, and in Christ before Paul," (Rom. 16.7) should be measured by the same standards? And this highlights the difficulty we face on this forum. How do we measure Witness Lee? What are the N.T. standards by which the apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers are measured?

In the US, WL did not do the work of a missionary apostle bringing the gospel to new lands. Some have testified that he left Taiwan under questionable financial impropriety. He began working here after a period of sincere repentance. Personally I think WL was a gifted teacher who failed in many regards.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

I would defer to Pauls argument in 2 Corinthians chapters 12 and 13. It is His speaking in us through the apostle.

Drake

Not sure exactly what you mean. If you are saying that Paul's speaking matched the Spirit's speaking in the Church, maybe it did. But that doesn't mean someone can just say Lee's speaking matched the Spirit's speaking and that settles it. I don't believe it did, for one. So where does that leave us?

Again, remember in those days the Apostles were the Bible to the Church. That's no longer true. The Bible is the Bible now, and I can point out place after place where Lee got the Bible wrong. So if Lee is an Apostle how can he get the Bible wrong?

Those two chapters show how Paul pleaded with the Corinthians to trust him as one who was qualified to lead them. That is totally different in tone and content from what Lee and his successors did. Lee threatened, both implicitly and explicitly. His successors threaten even more. Not only so, they act on their threats. I'm not taking about rebukes, I'm talking about what Richard Nixon called "dirty tricks," back alley finagling to undermine elderships and churches.

Paul was completely different. He loved the Corinthians and wanted to serve them. The leadership of the LCM acts more like they own everyone.

These two chapters are actually more evidence of how the bunch is unqualified.

BTW, you still haven't told me how an Apostle proves himself as per Rev 2:2.

[Drake]

Igzy》"BTW, you still haven't told me how an Apostle proves himself as per Rev 2:2."

Igzy,

I will address the main point of your post in a separate note. .. but to the above .. Rev 2:2 does not say how... it only indicates they did. The best explanation is Paul's in 2Corinthians 12 and 13. Christ spoke powerfully in them simultaneously through the grace exhibited in His speaking through a weak vessel. You will argue that the proof would have been some miraculous exhibition by true apostles that the false apostles were not able to replicate. Yet, that is an odd test because the False Prophet also performs magical tricks on queue and thereby deceives many.... Paul explained to the Corinthians that their seeking miracles as proof of apostleship was misguided.

Jesus warned us about the fallacy of relying on miracles...

:Matthew 24:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy》"BTW, you still haven't told me how an Apostle proves himself as per Rev 2:2."

Igzy,

I will address the main point of your post in a separate note. .. but to the above .. Rev 2:2 does not say how... it only indicates they did. The best explanation is Paul's in 2Corinthians 12 and 13. Christ spoke powerfully in them simultaneously through the grace exhibited in His speaking through a weak vessel. You will argue that the proof would have been some miraculous exhibition by true apostles that the false apostles were not able to replicate. Yet, that is an odd test because the False Prophet also performs magical tricks on queue and thereby deceives many.... Paul explained to the Corinthians that their seeking miracles as proof of apostleship was misguided.

Jesus warned us about the fallacy of relying on miracles...

:Matthew 24:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Drake

Drake, "the elect" in this verse does NOT refer to the church or to the believers, but to Israel. (see Mt 24.15) Please read this verse in context, "Let him who reads understand!"

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, "the elect" in this verse does NOT refer to the church or to the believers, but to Israel. (see Mt 24.15) Please read this verse in context, "Let him who reads understand!"

Ohio,

You’re missing the point. See Matt 7:22-23

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy》"BTW, you still haven't told me how an Apostle proves himself as per Rev 2:2."

Igzy,

Jesus warned us about the fallacy of relying on miracles...

:Matthew 24:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Drake

These false prophets in Revelation are not preaching anything approaching the gospel. And the fact is Jesus himself performed miracles to show who he was. And he gave power to the Apostles to do likewise. Miracles themselves are not enough, neither is a nifty set of teachings. God plainly gave Jesus and the Apostles both truth and power. Lee had teachings (many of which were downright false), and he lacked power.

You are right. The best explanation is 2 Cor 12. Verse 12 specifically, which clearly says that true Apostles have supernatural power.

So answer me this. Who is the Apostle now? Besides Nee and Lee, who has been an Apostle in the last 100 years? Who was the Apostle before them? Why did the ministry of these two "great Apostles" produce so little?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2 I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false;

In the thread on "the boundary of the church" this question came up and seems to be central to this forum on the ministry of Witness Lee and the impact that had on the Lord's Recovery Churches (LRC).

How do you test and determine that an apostle is false?

It's hard to prove a negative. So, before you can determine that an apostle is false, can we first arrive at a scriptural definition of an "apostle". That is, what is a "true" apostle?

One website says: "False apostles are people who masquerade as Christian leaders, get other people to follow them, and then lead them astray. A true apostle is one who is “sent” by God as an ambassador of Jesus Christ with a divine message. A false apostle is a pretender who does not truly represent Christ and whose message is false.
https://www.gotquestions.org/false-apostles.html

Matthew 7:15-20 says "You Will Know Them by Their Fruits" then discusses false prophets.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Can we apply the same test to false prophets that we apply to false apostles? In light of false prophets/apostles and their fruit, to determine if an apostle is false, look at the fruits of their ministry. There is no shortage of testimony on the fruit of Witness Lee's ministry from which a test could easily be derived. Does Lee's ministry represent Christ, or himself? Is Lee pretending to represent Christ, all the while representing himself?

Nell

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

It's hard to prove a negative. So, before you can determine that an apostle is false, can we first arrive at a scriptural definition of an "apostle". That is, what is a "true" apostle?

One website says: "False apostles are people who masquerade as Christian leaders, get other people to follow them, and then lead them astray. A true apostle is one who is “sent” by God as an ambassador of Jesus Christ with a divine message. A false apostle is a pretender who does not truly represent Christ and whose message is false.
https://www.gotquestions.org/false-apostles.html

Matthew 7:15-20 says "You Will Know Them by Their Fruits" then discusses false prophets.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Can we apply the same test to false prophets that we apply to false apostles? In light of false prophets/apostles and their fruit, to determine if an apostle is false, look at the fruits of their ministry. There is no shortage of testimony on the fruit of Witness Lee's ministry from which a test could easily be derived. Does Lee's ministry represent Christ, or himself? Is Lee pretending to represent Christ, all the while representing himself?

Nell

Yes, I think this is the principle that the Lord gave us. However, "you shall know them by their fruit" doesn't mean they don't have fruit. It means they don't have "good fruit". In the same way you will know a prospective elder by his fruit, his children. The test is not if he has children, but rather "did he raise them well".

Applying this to Witness Lee, no doubt those that feel he was a true apostle will point to his fruit. Those that don't feel he was a true apostle will also point to his fruit.

So I do agree we have to examine the fruit, still it is not a simple question even if you do that.

The other thing that is interesting to me is that you examine their fruit prior to receiving them, not as part of a historical reflection on the place that this person might have. You examine the fruit of an elder before you appoint him, you examine the fruit of an evangelist long before you would describe the person as a gifted evangelist, likewise with shepherds and teachers.

when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision 8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;

You examine the fruit of the person to see that they "have been intrusted with the gospel" before you "give unto them the right hand of fellowship".