Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

Yes, I agree with that. However, if a "so called" apostle were to try and add something to the NT or take away something from the NT they would be exposed as a fraud. Therefore, although the NT has not "replaced" the apostles it does represent a higher authority than modern day apostles.

I like the picture that Paul paints, he laid the foundation, others are building on that foundation. They cannot lay another foundation, nor can they build on another foundation.

[Drake]

Igzy>^So let's break it up and go home. There is nothing you can say that's going to convince me that Lee or any other Johnny-Come-Lately with a fringe sycophantic following is an apostle either, short of miracles.”

I never expected to convince you Igzy. You should feel free to disengage anytime you like.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Ohio>”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?”

Ohio,

I agree with much of what you said. My point is that denying that those NT apostles even exist is contradicted by Pauls own commendation of them. All the gifts you listed are for the building up of the Body of Christ and there is no compelling evidence that Paul was the last apostle.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio>”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?”

Ohio,

I agree with much of what you said. My point is that denying that those NT apostles even exist is contradicted by Pauls own commendation of them. All the gifts you listed are for the building up of the Body of Christ and there is no compelling evidence that Paul was the last apostle.

Drake

Okay, fair enough. I won't argue that Paul was the last apostle. But he did say that Jesus appeared lastly to him. There was a reason he said that, and I don't think it had anything to do with him being "least." I think it was about that set of men being somehing special apart from any that came after them. They had "seen Jesus." Paul more than once pointed to this as a credential. He wasn't just bragging, it was something significant and important about him and a few others.

So I don't think we can necessarily confer to someone we want to call a current day "apostle" the same power and authority Paul and those few others had. Certainly I think we all agree that no one can add to scripture. So the question becomes, what is the extend of authority of apostles.

I simply do not believe that God confers the kind of authority that allows a person, apostle or not, to go into a church and start ordering the leadership around. You don't have to be a genuis to see the kinds of problems that can cause. Thinking latter day "apostles" have that kind of authority is a recipe for disaster as far as I can tell.

I just don't see the point of looking to recognize "apostles," other than to empower someone (Lee? Blendeds?) with carte blanche authority. I think the only reason the LCM defends apostleship is to defend Lee's authority. They certainly aren't interested in any apostles not in their movement.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, fair enough. I won't argue that Paul was the last apostle. But he did say that Jesus appeared lastly to him. There was a reason he said that, and I don't think it had anything to do with him being "least." I think it was about that set of men being somehing special apart from any that came after them. They had "seen Jesus." Paul more than once pointed to this as a credential. He wasn't just bragging, it was something significant and important about him and a few others.

Yes, I agree that this statement of Paul's makes a very strong inference that these initial apostles who had seen Jesus in the flesh were distinct from those that follow.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I just don't see the point of looking to recognize "apostles," other than to empower someone (Lee? Blendeds?) with carte blanche authority. I think the only reason the LCM defends apostleship is to defend Lee's authority. They certainly aren't interested in any apostles not in their movement.

Hi Igzy,

V13 in Ephesians 4 explains why the gifts given by the Lord himself are still relevant today.

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Igzy,

V13 in Ephesians 4 explains why the gifts given by the Lord himself are still relevant today.

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Drake

Today in the Recovery we have those who love to uplift Lee to the status of MOTA, "acting God," or "today's Paul," yet there seems to be no other genuine gifts given to the Recovery. Where are the apostles? Where are the prophets? Where are the evangelists? Where are the pastors? Where are the teachers?

The more they have worked for 40+ years to elevate their glorious leader, the less they have the real gifts from the Head to His body. The Recovery view of the "measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" is one minister exalted at the top -- the MOTA -- and all the other members flat as a pancake.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Igzy,
V13 in Ephesians 4 explains why the gifts given by the Lord himself are still relevant today.
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

First, the fact that he gave apostles for the building of the Body and that the Body is not yet completely built is no proof that he is continuing to give apostles.

It also says that he gave prophets. Although it's hard to discern apostles (unless you agree that they should be empowered), it's relatively easy to discern prophets. If their prophecies consistently come true, they are likely prophets. So who have been the prophets in the last 1800 years? If the Lord has been continuing to give apostles, why hasn't he been continuing to give prophets? If he has, name one.

I'm afraid your argument falls flat there.

Second, we have no clear agree-upon, scriptural way to to discern apostles (again, unless you agree that they should be empowered). If we did, there would have been much more agreement down through the centuries on who were apostles. In fact, as far as I know, the Church has not had anything approaching consensus since the 1st century on one single "apostle."

I'm sorry, Drake. But the fact is your view only produces a situation were a tiny group agrees someone is an apostle, and looks down their noses at those who don't, and let's his legacy of "apostleship" run roughshod over a lot of God's people.

You have no system for viably convincing those who are skeptical about Lee that he is an apostle. The only thing left to do is convince yourself that you and your little group alone have the purity of heart to see the "truth." You alone are the chosen ones, the remnant, the Recovery, and all those other characteristics for which the best adjective is "cultic."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio>”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?”

Ohio,

I agree with much of what you said. My point is that denying that those NT apostles even exist is contradicted by Pauls own commendation of them. All the gifts you listed are for the building up of the Body of Christ and there is no compelling evidence that Paul was the last apostle.

Drake

I said Paul was the last of the original ambassadors of Christ, the last of the apostles who laid the foundation of God's house, and among the foundational apostles who wrote the New Testament.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I said Paul was the last of the original ambassadors of Christ, the last of the apostles who laid the foundation of God's house, and among the foundational apostles who wrote the New Testament.

I think that is an excellent distinction. We have "foundational apostles" based on Paul's words, and we have those that will build on this foundation that has been laid.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I said Paul was the last of the original ambassadors of Christ, the last of the apostles who laid the foundation of God's house, and among the foundational apostles who wrote the New Testament.

Ohio,

Yes you did.

You listed 3, Peter, John, Paul, of the foundational 12+1 who authored books in the New Testament.

How about those who authored books in the NT who were not of the foundational 12+1?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, author of Hebrews, James, Jude.

That would be twice as many authors nonfoundational as foundational and yet I'm sure we would agree that their accounts and letters are foundational .

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Yes you did.

You listed 3, Peter, John, Paul, of the foundational 12+1 who authored books in the New Testament.

How about those who authored books in the NT who were not of the foundational 12+1?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, author of Hebrews, James, Jude.

That would be twice as many authors nonfoundational as foundational and yet I'm sure we would agree that their accounts and letters are foundational .

Drake

This is my understanding:

Matthew (Levi) was one of the 12.
Mark was with the 12, and gave us Peter's Gospel. Mark was a connecting link between Peter and Paul.
Luke was with Paul for many years, almost exclusively. (2 Tm 4.11)
Hebrews was authored by Paul, and written by Luke. (My conclusion)
James and Jude, brothers of the Lord, "saw Jesus" and believed following the resurrection.

Had Stephen, Barnabas, Timothy or Titus written accounts, probably the early church would have received those as well.

Initially the books of Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation were not readily included in the NT canon, until church fathers gathered to gather all the evidences.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I agree with that. However, if a "so called" apostle were to try and add something to the NT or take away something from the NT they would be exposed as a fraud. Therefore, although the NT has not "replaced" the apostles it does represent a higher authority than modern day apostles.

I like the picture that Paul paints, he laid the foundation, others are building on that foundation. They cannot lay another foundation, nor can they build on another foundation.

Yep. I agree with that ZNP.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

Actually bro Drake we don't hear from most of the apostles. Acts says John and Peter were illiterate, so maybe most of the apostles, not coming from the upper elite, couldn't write. We don't know. The scriptures we do have don't say.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Actually bro Drake we don't hear from most of the apostles. Acts says John and Peter were illiterate, so maybe most of the apostles, not coming from the upper elite, couldn't write. We don't know. The scriptures we do have don't say.

Bible never said they were illiterate. Go study the Greek words.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bible never said they were illiterate. Go study the Greek words.

Strong's Acts 4:13 :
ἀγράμματος
agrammatos
ag-ram-mat-os
From G1 (as negative particle) and G1121; unlettered, that is, illiterate: - unlearned.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Strong's Acts 4:13 :
ἀγράμματος
agrammatos
ag-ram-mat-os
From G1 (as negative particle) and G1121; unlettered, that is, illiterate: - unlearned.

From where I come from "unlettered" and "illiterate" are two different things. Unlettered refers to someone who did not attend higher education whereas illiterate refers to someone who can't read (i.e. elementary education).