Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Cal]

Another characteristic of a true apostle is he is not shy about declaring his apostleship. Paul did it. Peter did it. Paul plainly acknowledged the 12 Apostles.

"Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Cor. 15:7-9)

Lee never boldly claimed he was an apostle. I was in a meeting once where he spoke. He told a story of a woman who approached him and asked, "Are you the apostle?" He said his response was to just laugh.

That wisdom seemed to have left him later on, as he saw the power advantage of people believing he had an apostle's commission. Even so, he still did not have the boldness to claim it. He just took advantage of the fact that some people believed it.

So, really, it seems silly to argue that Lee was an apostle if even he didn't claim it himself. If Lee wasn't bold enough to declare "I'm an apostle!" then why should we believe it?

Note also in the verses above that Paul again implies that a qualification for apostleship is "seeing Jesus." And also note that the argument could be made that Paul is implying he is the last apostle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another characteristic of a true apostle is he is not shy about declaring his apostleship. Paul did it. Peter did it. Paul plainly acknowledged the 12 Apostles.

Yes, his claim to have been called to be an apostle to the Gentiles by the will of God is a cornerstone of his ministry.

How do you test an apostle?

2 Thessalonians 2:3 For our exhortation is not of error, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: 4 but even as we have been approved of God to be intrusted with the gospel, so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God who proveth our hearts. 5 For neither at any time were we found using words of flattery, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness, God is witness; 6 nor seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ.

You asked about Rev 2:2, how did they test the apostles. Here Paul says that God tests them. Their experiences put them through trials to see if they would use flattery, or a cloak for covetousness, seek glory of men, uncleanness, guile or "pleasing men".

Paul is referring to this to the Thessalonians that they did not see any of these things during his trials. Therefore I think it is a reasonable conclusion from this that uncleanness, guile, pleasing men, flattery, covetousness or seeking glory from men would all indicate someone who is not fit to be an apostle.

[ZNPaaneah]

If you take the point that Igzy made about Apostles being very up front about their calling and apply this to Witness Lee then his claim to apostleship is completely wrapped up in "the ground of the church" doctrine.

If you take what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians then proving Witness Lee comes down to determining if "his exhortation [concerning the ground of the church] is of error, or of uncleanness or of guile".

[Cal]

The psychology of the LCM is that Lee was a specially commissioned apostle with something approaching if not attaining direct revelation from God--revelation that effectively trumps the Bible. If you feel compelled to believe and defend everything Lee says about the Bible, then you no longer believe in the Bible, you believe in Lee.

LCMers will accept Lee's teaching and fight for it no matter what, even when the teaching is plainly tenuous and in conflict the vast majority of the Church. Why? Because he is "the apostle," and so beyond questioning. It's not about truth anymore, it's about him. The Bible means what he says it means. If he adds to the Bible (e.g. man becoming God) that's okay, too. It all begins and ends with Lee. That's the mindset of the LCM.

And that's why some of the otherwise reasonable people on this board can suddenly seem to go into denial and stonewalling. Because the bottom-line with them is not reason, but Lee.

It is easy to see how holding a human being in such high esteem can go terribly wrong. As I've said before, there is no fail-safe. There are no brakes on the bus. Once you believe about someone the way LCM believes about Lee, you are married to it as it is approaching and even after it goes over the cliff, all the time claiming you are doing the right thing.

That's not faith. That's true-believerism.

[ZNPaaneah]

I met with the LRC for 20 years (1978 to 1998) and this was not my experience. I never felt that his revelation "trumped the Bible", nor did I accept it because "he is the apostle".

If I disagreed with him over something (and there were things from 1978 on that I did disagree with) since they were not a matter of the faith I simply agreed to disagree.

I bought into the "ground of the church" doctrine because I was taught it when I had no foundation in the Bible. Within 10 years I had come to question this. But, most of the things that are brought up on this forum that are clearly in error I was completely unaware of or had no knowledge of the details.

Therefore, although this was your experience I know for a fact that it was not everyone's experience and I probably represent a significant percent of those who met with the LRC during this period.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Therefore, although this was your experience I know for a fact that it was not everyone's experience and I probably represent a significant percent of those who met with the LRC during this period.

This is probably why you were able to leave. There are many who cannot leave because of who they believe Lee was and what they believe their movement is.

Effectively to them Lee is the faith and the Recovery is the Church. To them, in essense, there is nothing genuine outside their walls, so leaving is not an option. That's how the LCM holds people there.

I have no doubt the Blendeds have this mindset.

I'm not saying they consciously think this way. Some may, but most probably don't. I'm saying that when you get right down to it, they defer to Lee, so the effect is the same.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I met with the LRC for 20 years (1978 to 1998) and this was not my experience. I never felt that his revelation "trumped the Bible", nor did I accept it because "he is the apostle".

Back in the 70's, during the "Jesus People Movement," there was much interest in the Lord, and many dynamic salvations, including my own, during this time of a genuine out-pouring of the Spirit. This joy and excitement provided much blessing for the fledgling LC's. Many were also attracted to Lee because of Nee's books. To be honest, Lee was a gifted minister and teacher.

Subtly, however, we became persuaded that the reason for this blessing was Lee himself and his unique teachings. There was a time when guests would come to their first meeting and proclaim, "God is surely among you," (I Cor 14.25) but that also happened in many other congregations at the time. Funny thing was that the more he promoted himself and his exclusive teachings, the more the blessing dried up, and dead doctrines took over. Over time the growing number of radical zealots in the Recovery promoting Lee displaced those who were here for the Lord alone and His people.

Apostle Paul had warned us that men would rise up from within speaking perverted things (Acts 20.30) to draw the disciples after themselves, but we were convinced that this could never happen to us. We were taught that following a man was just fine, as long as he led us to God. Problem was that the time when we were "led to God" became ancient history, and all that was left was "following a man." And that man demanded to be first among us, (3 John 9) just like Diotrephes of old. Lee and his ministry thus became the bond of a false oneness and the source of division in the LC's.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The psychology of the LCM is that Lee was a specially commissioned apostle with something approaching if not attaining direct revelation from God--revelation that effectively trumps the Bible. If you feel compelled to believe and defend everything Lee says about the Bible, then you no longer believe in the Bible, you believe in Lee.

LCMers will accept Lee's teaching and fight for it no matter what, even when the teaching is plainly tenuous and in conflict the vast majority of the Church. Why? Because he is "the apostle," and so beyond questioning. It's not about truth anymore, it's about him. The Bible means what he says it means. If he adds to the Bible (e.g. man becoming God) that's okay, too. It all begins and ends with Lee. That's the mindset of the LCM.

And that's why some of the otherwise reasonable people on this board can suddenly seem to go into denial and stonewalling. Because the bottom-line with them is not reason, but Lee.

It is easy to see how holding a human being in such high esteem can go terribly wrong. As I've said before, there is no fail-safe. There are no brakes on the bus. Once you believe about someone the way LCM believes about Lee, you are married to it as it is approaching and even after it goes over the cliff, all the time claiming you are doing the right thing.

That's not faith. That's true-believerism.

Great post. These are words of wisdom.

We used to laugh when Lee used the example of going off the cliff.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, his claim to have been called to be an apostle to the Gentiles by the will of God is a cornerstone of his ministry. How do you test an apostle?

Some have said Paul gives a defense of his apostleship in 2 Cor 5:13-6:13, and if someone claims to be an apostle, their life should be compared to the things Paul says were true of his apostleship.

Compare this list Paul gives to your favorite apostle, and see how they fare.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JJ

Some have said Paul gives a defense of his apostleship in 2 Cor 5:13-6:13, and if someone claims to be an apostle, their life should be compared to the things Paul says were true of his apostleship.

Compare this list Paul gives to your favorite apostle, and see how they fare.

Excellent, here it is:

13For whether we are beside ourselves, it is unto God; or whether we are of sober mind, it is unto you. 14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again.

1. Apostles do not Iive unto themselves but unto Him who for their sakes died and rose again.

16Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more. 17Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new.

2. Apostles are a new creation, their old life according to the flesh has passed away.

18But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; 19to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

3. Apostles have a ministry of reconciliation. Everything that happened in their life is of God and a testimony of God reconciling the world to Himself.

20We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. 21Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.



1And working together with him we entreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain 2(for he saith,
At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee,
And in a day of salvation did I succor thee:
behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation):

4. Apostles are working together with God that the world might be saved.

3giving no occasion of stumbling in anything, that our ministration be not blamed; 4*but in everything commending ourselves, as ministers of God,

5. Apostles are very concerned that nothing they do would give an occasion of stumbling.

In all of these things they are commending themselves as ministers of God:

in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, 5in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings; 6in pureness, in knowledge, in longsuffering, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in love unfeigned, 7in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, 8by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; 9as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; 10as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

6. All of the biases, the middle walls of partition, the ways in which the believers wall themselves off from others, that is not of the Apostle’s fellowship but is something in their flesh.

11Our mouth is open unto you, O Corinthians, our heart is enlarged. 12Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own affections. 13Now for a recompense in like kind (I speak as unto my children), be ye also enlarged.

[Drake]

Igzy>”Note also in the verses above that Paul again implies that a qualification for apostleship is "seeing Jesus." And also note that the argument could be made that Paul is implying he is the last apostle.”

Igzy,

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

First, there were many apostles that came after Paul became an apostle as Evangelical also identified.

Furthermore, Paul did not insinuate he was the last, he said he was the least.

Lastly, there is no scriptural basis for your assertion that the Bible replaced the apostles.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Lastly, there is no scriptural basis for your assertion that the Bible replaced the apostles.

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

Point: You are stretching your no scriptural basis argument to tenuous lengths.

Where is the scriptural basis for a subset group of the Church to tell its members that they should not leave that group?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

Point: You are stretching your no scriptural basis argument to tenuous lengths.

Where is the scriptural basis for a subset group of the Church to tell its members that they should not leave that group?

Igzy

Using that logic anybody could say anything and then cite some irrelevant points to justify an unscriptural viewpoint.

Of course you are entitled to hold those views but it should be clear that they are not according to scripture.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>”Note also in the verses above that Paul again implies that a qualification for apostleship is "seeing Jesus." And also note that the argument could be made that Paul is implying he is the last apostle.”

Igzy,

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

First, there were many apostles that came after Paul became an apostle as Evangelical also identified.

Furthermore, Paul did not insinuate he was the last, he said he was the least.

I agree with you based on my understanding of apostle, but not based on Igzy's definition that the apostle's were the ones with the authority to write scripture. Paul said he was called to "complete the word". Peter said that Paul's writings were scripture. Therefore I would argue that there is a scriptural basis to say that the NT is complete.

Originally Posted by Drake

Lastly, there is no scriptural basis for your assertion that the Bible replaced the apostles.

Drake

I also agree with this. However, I would also agree with Igzy that there is a scriptural basis to say that there are no apostles henceforth with the authority to add to or to take away from the NT. That is essentially given to us in the conclusion of the NT in the book of Revelation.

[awareness]

Paul provides to the Corinthians the signs of an apostle :

2Co 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with you based on my understanding of apostle, but not based on Igzy's definition that the apostle's were the ones with the authority to write scripture. Paul said he was called to "complete the word". Peter said that Paul's writings were scripture. Therefore I would argue that there is a scriptural basis to say that the NT is complete.
I also agree with this. However, I would also agree with Igzy that there is a scriptural basis to say that there are no apostles henceforth with the authority to add to or to take away from the NT. That is essentially given to us in the conclusion of the NT in the book of Revelation.

The NT is complete. Nevertheless, there were many apostles in the NT that did not write letters to be included in the NT, and they were apostles nonetheless.

Drake