Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The first century early church did not have a ready compilation of approved books forming the N.T. The churches regularly were forced to determine which apostles and which writings should be received as part of the "teaching and fellowship of the apostles." (Acts 2.42) We see this battle over legitimacy throughout Paul's writings. The burden Paul faced was extraordinary since he both opposed "the way," and he was not including with the Twelve. John wrote that Ephesus was commended for trying the apostles, showing us how trying their churchlife had become.

Sorry for being so brief as to be unclear. In this discussion it began with Igzy asking a question of Drake to explain how, like the church in Ephesus, we can examine and determine if an apostle is true or false. That question would have been unnecessary if only first century apostles were apostles.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Eventually the early church was forced to decide which writings were to be received into the canon, rejecting all others. This, in effect, closed the door to modern day so-called "apostles" who attempted to add their own writings to the canon. Think about how absurd it would be today for some gifted teacher or minister to elevate himself to the status of Apostle Paul, declare his own writings the "interpreted word," and begin to discredit certain "undesirable" books of scripture like the book of James or some of the Psalms. No one would receive such a preacher.

No one? Really? You have a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. Perhaps my experience in the LRC has made me less trusting.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sorry for being so brief as to be unclear. In this discussion it began with Igzy asking a question of Drake to explain how, like the church in Ephesus, we can examine and determine if an apostle is true or false. That question would have been unnecessary if only first century apostles were apostles.

I understand. It's too bad we don't know what criteria Ephesus used.

We have discussed signs and wonders, seeing Jesus, etc. which have not arrived at a consensus. Looking at Ephesus, I saw a distinction between "foundational" apostles (2.20) and "building" apostles (4.11-12)

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No one? Really? You have a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. Perhaps my experience in the LRC has made me less trusting.

I was being a little sardonic.

[Drake]

Igzy>"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. "

V13 starts with the word "until".... meaning up to the events mentioned in v13.

The gifts mentioned in v11 are given to perfect the saints in v12 to do the building up of the Body until the items in v13 are completed.

The goals are v13, the procedure is v12, and the enablers are in v11.

Drake

[Drake]

Igzy>"Also, I think the results of such unconfirmed succession speak for themselves. "

Ephesians 4 does not describe succession. ... that is a Catholic concept.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>"Also, I think the results of such unconfirmed succession speak for themselves. "

Ephesians 4 does not describe succession. ... that is a Catholic concept.

Drake

Drake it's hard to respect your ideas when you can't even provide proper quotation for Igzy's words.

If "succession" is a Catholic concept, how do you explain Lee succeeding Nee and the Blendeds succeeding Lee?

This kind of blasts LSM's MOTA genealogy and mythology out of the water.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake it's hard to respect your ideas when you can't even provide proper quotation for Igzy's words..

Well ok.

Igzy, what did you mean by succession?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake it's hard to respect your ideas when you can't even provide proper quotation for Igzy's words.

If "succession" is a Catholic concept, how do you explain Lee succeeding Nee and the Blendeds succeeding Lee?

This kind of blasts LSM's MOTA genealogy and mythology out of the water.

Perhaps Drake is saying that LSM is wrong in this concept of Blendeds succeeding from WL and have adopted an unscriptural Catholic concept.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>"Also, I think the results of such unconfirmed succession speak for themselves. "

Ephesians 4 does not describe succession. ... that is a Catholic concept.

Drake

The word succession can be used for something other than a Catholic concept. It's pretty clear that in the first century to be an Apostle you had to know and be confirmed by another Apostle. There are no free-lancers or Johnny-Come-Latelys.

Why would the Lord not give the Church a way to easily confirm Apostles?

The answer is, either he did and Lee does not measure up, or he didn't.

I believe he did, and Lee does not measure up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The word succession can be used for something other than a Catholic concept. It's pretty clear that in the first century to be an Apostle you had to know and be confirmed by another Apostle. There are no free-lancers or Johnny-Come-Latelys.

Why would the Lord not give the Church a way to easily confirm Apostles?

The answer is, either he did and Lee does not measure up, or he didn't.

I believe he did, and Lee does not measure up.

Are you basing this on Galatians? Is this based on Paul's word about "laying on of hands"? What are you basing this on?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why would the Lord not give the Church a way to easily confirm Apostles?
The answer is, either he did and Lee does not measure up, or he didn't.
I believe he did, and Lee does not measure up.

So then, are you saying the way to easily confirm an Apostle is if he knew and was confirmed by another apostle?

What is this easy way you are referring to?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>"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. "

V13 starts with the word "until".... meaning up to the events mentioned in v13.

The gifts mentioned in v11 are given to perfect the saints in v12 to do the building up of the Body until the items in v13 are completed.

The goals are v13, the procedure is v12, and the enablers are in v11.

Drake

If if said "he gives" instead of "he gave" you might have a point. But there is no proof in this verse that he is continuing to give apostles. The baseline of "gave" is only past tense.

We know he has continued to give evangelists, shepherds and teachers, their presence has been and is undeniably manifest. There has been little evidence of apostles and prophets.

As I've said, the Church has not recognized any Apostles since John died. Even under the unlikely possibility that Lee was an apostle, the fact that you and your fringe groups believes it is nothing confirmation. Believe what you want, but it's unreasonable for you to expect anyone else to.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If if said "he gives" instead of "he gave" you might have a point. But there is no proof in this verse that he is continuing to give apostles. The baseline of "gave" is only past tense.

We know he has continued to give evangelists, shepherds and teachers, their presence has been and is undeniably manifest. There has been little evidence of apostles and prophets.

As I've said, the Church has not recognized any Apostles since John died. Even under the unlikely possibility that Lee was an apostle, the fact that you and your fringe groups believes it is nothing confirmation. Believe what you want, but it's unreasonable for you to expect anyone else to.

Very interesting that you appeal to the Catholic viewpoint that the bishopry replaced apostles after Johm died. Any Bible verse for that?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Very interesting that you appeal to the Catholic viewpoint that the bishopry replaced apostles after Johm died. Any Bible verse for that?

I never said the bishopry replaced the apostles.

What I said was since the revelation was closed there was no more need for men to receive direct revelation from God. (Rev 22:18).

That being the case, the authority of apostles was by definition reduced. The nature of the apostolic gift changed. Big 'A' apostles gave way to little 'a' apostles. These we now call missionaries or church planters. But I don't believe any of them have extra-local authority.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I never said the bishopry replaced the apostles.

What I said was since the revelation was closed there was no more need for men to receive direct revelation from God. (Rev 22:18).

That being the case, the authority of apostles was by definition reduced. The nature of the apostolic gift changed. Big 'A' apostles gave way to little 'a' apostles. These we now call missionaries or church planters. But I don't believe any of them have extra-local authority.

Makes sense. When you wrote "the Church has not recognized any Apostles since John died" I interpreted as the Catholic Church being the one to introduce the idea of apostolic succession after the death of John.

I find the idea that "there was no more need for men to receive direct revelation from God" dangerous and parallels the situation in ancient Israel with the prophets.