Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[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."