Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Now, tell me again why you are right about apostles and 99% of the Church is wrong...

John Gill — agrees with Igzy

Ellicott — agrees with Igzy

Benson — agrees with Igzy

Matthew Henry — ducks the issue, probably disagrees with Igzy as he emphasized the fact that each member is growing and maturing in grace. Also he defines apostles as “messengers, sent forth to proclaim His kingdom." The impression I get is he sides with the idea that every believer has the capacity to experience these gifts in some measure but is afraid to say that there are still apostles.

Matthew Poole — responds to the claim that the Apostle’s were appointed by Jesus Christ in Mathew 10:1, which is the go to argument for Gill and others. He says Ephesians 4 — refers to Christ giving apostles after his resurrection and ascension, therefore it cannot refer to those he appointed prior to that.

Meyer appears to give merit to both arguments. Kind of siding with the foundational apostles theory posited by Ohio.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Benson — agrees with Igzy

Agrees with me about what specifically? Where did he say it?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Agrees with me about what specifically? Where did he say it?

I was looking at their commentary on Eph 4:11, three agreed that Apostles were a once and for all thing that took place at the beginning of the church age.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was looking at their commentary on Eph 4:11, three agreed that Apostles were a once and for all thing that took place at the beginning of the church age.

I guess you weren't talking about Benson Phillips....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Where is Benson's commentary?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/4-11.htm

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/4-11.htm

I thought you were talking about Benson Phillips.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I thought you were talking about Benson Phillips.

Whew! Close call..... can you imagine?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Matthew Henry — ducks the issue, probably disagrees with Igzy as he emphasized the fact that each member is growing and maturing in grace. Also he defines apostles as “messengers, sent forth to proclaim His kingdom." The impression I get is he sides with the idea that every believer has the capacity to experience these gifts in some measure but is afraid to say that there are still apostles.

I just highlighted in bold the part about being "afraid to stay there are still apostles". It is interesting you write that as it fits with my theory.

My theory is that a general fear pervades Christianity in both Catholic and Protestant churches to claim or admit that apostles and prophets exist today or could exist today. The reason is that the denominations both Catholic and Protestant are headed by men put in those positions by other men and not God. Apostles and prophets appointed by God are a threat to their control. To think that any God-appointed no body could rise up and take over their role is a threat.

Apostles and prophets, as being represented by Moses and Elijah, are the two main functions which Satan would surely seek to destroy. His tactics are the same used as in ancient Israel - destroy the prophets and the leaders.
Interestingly, this corresponds to limiting the function of the first two and most important roles in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28).

I might accept a view that "helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" might cease, but I cannot see how or why God would limit or restrict the role of apostles and prophets for 2000 years. This would be equivalent to a company, removing the roles of CEO and Executives but keeping middle and lower management. Or a country, removing the role of President but keeping other roles such as the communications director.

If we believe that apostles and prophets have ceased then all the other functions should cease as well, because apostles and prophets are the first and second.
It is a strange position that some Christians hold, that God would remove the first and second most important, and leave the third , fourth and fifth (teaching, miracles, tongues). This is clearly a deception to remove the most important and leave the less important. If these are truly God's gifts to the church, then he has removed the best gifts? Today in Christianity the less important roles (teaching, evangelism, and tongue speaking) are emphasized and the most important - prophesy and apostle, are not. This contradicts scripture where Paul said to desire prophesy and tongues is the least gift (1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1).

[Drake]

-1

Very insightful. Had not considered it before.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My theory is that a general fear pervades Christianity in both Catholic and Protestant churches to claim or admit that apostles and prophets exist today or could exist today. The reason is that the denominations both Catholic and Protestant are headed by men put in those positions by other men and not God. Apostles and prophets appointed by God are a threat to their control. To think that any God-appointed no body could rise up and take over their role is a threat.

This is an interesting point and worthy of consideration. But in my opinion concern is not justified in this day and age. Anybody and everybody is writing books and expressing their point of view. I even wrote a book myself (not published yet). So anyone with computer and an Internet connection is potentially the next "oracle."

No one heard of Rick Warren until he wrote The Purpose-Driven Life. That work was not marketed or strategically endorsed by the power elite. It just struck a nerve and took off. The rest is history.

So what does it mean to be "appointed by God?" Wasn't Rick Warren appointed by God? If not, how did his book achieve such success? There is nothing in it that appeals to the flesh or the masses. The first sentence in the book is "It's not about you." That a Christian book that starts that way goes on to be the best-selling non-fiction book of all time has to be something of God.

So in this day of the Internet the playing field is leveled. In keeping with human nature, some of those in positions of attainment likely are threatened by the newest star. But history shows they come and they go. The pure of heart understand this, and have their moment and do not begrudge the next in line. The self-interested on the other hand might be envious. This would be true whether the person in question is in a religious organization or thinks he is "appointed by God."

[awareness]

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

I witnessed Lee transforming himself into the Apostle. When I objected. I was told I had a week to stand up in the meeting and repent, or be excommunicated.

I didn't. I couldn't. I had to be true to my conscience, that wasn't convicted. I had done nothing wrong. I didn't deny God, Christ, the Spirit, the Church, or the Bible. I only denied that Lee was the Apostle.

When the week was came due, I was nailed, and out of there. I was basically told, that, that Lee was the Apostle was the way of life. I saw it as the way of death.

Why do you think Paul warned about "self transformers?"

In the end, those out here defending that there are apostles today, are, by and large, defending a whole lot of self transformers.

Self transformers use a sleight of hand trick to make it sound like they are speaking for God. They quote a lot of the Bible ... just like Lee did ... to make it sound like God is speaking thru them in real time.

When it came to Lee I had ears to hear. But I only heard a Bible teacher. I certainly didn't hear someone that could override Christ in my spirit.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I witnessed Lee transforming himself into the Apostle. When I objected. I was told I had a week to stand up in the meeting and repent, or be excommunicated.

I knew an elder in Texas. Around 1990, he told his fellow elders that he could not in good conscience commit to following Witness Lee exclusively. They told him to not share that with anyone. He said he could not do that either, so they asked him to resign.

Even Paul did not expect churches to follow him exclusively.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
Why do you think Paul warned about "self transformers?"

I find this whole concept of "Apostolic authority" bizarrely interesting. Yes, it is mentioned once in the NT:

So in the same section where Paul tells us everything he didn't do -- his appeal does not come from delusions or impure motives [reminds me of the MOTA], nor was it motivated by deceit [again, reminds me of the MOTA]. He spoke the gospel, not as a way of pleasing people to gain power and popularity. He didn't speak with words of flattery nor with a pretext for greed. He didn't seek glory and honor from people. In this context he also tells us he didn't assert his authority as an apostle. (1Thess 1:3-6).

Think about that, it is the only place in the NT that refers to "apostolic authority" and it is referred to as something that Paul did not assert. Nor do we see Peter asserting it when Paul rebukes him. On the other hand John refers to Diotrophese asserting his authority when he refuses brothers sent by John because "he loves the preeminence among them"

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me this whole "MOTA" and "apostolic authority" refers to those who love preeminence in the church, like the false brothers who wanted to bring others into bondage.

The authority that was given to Paul, which he refers to in his epistle to the Corinthians, and which he does use is the authority that was given by the Lord in Matthew 18 to those who are meeting in the Lord's name.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me this whole "MOTA" and "apostolic authority" refers to those who love preeminence in the church, like the false brothers who wanted to bring others into bondage.

It seems to mean that, for example, when Paul tells Timothy to speak with all authority, he is not saying you have the authority to command, but you have the authority to speak. Whether someone listens to you is their affair.

But I agree with you, the kind of authority the LCM has granted apostles is a perversion of that.

Let's be clear. Nee and Lee both once condemned workers employing extra-local authority. Lee said the idea of a bishop, a worker who has oversight of several churches, was a fallen concept. Well, what did he and his successors become but just that, whether you call them co-workers, bishops, cardinals or apostles. They are all birds of the same feather. Ducks with the same quack, dogs with the same bark.

I will grant you apostles that works as missionaries and church planters, setting up and advising churches. I will not grant you apostles who have the right to wrest authority from established elders, even in churches they planted.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I will grant you apostles that works as missionaries and church planters, setting up and advising churches. I will not grant you apostles who have the right to wrest authority from established elders, even in churches they planted.

Look at this we all can agree (You, Me and Nee) that a Pope is not scriptural, but the gift of Apostles is.

I think you meant Paul charged Titus to speak with all authority.

Personally I believe that verse in Titus disputes the whole concept of "apostolic authority" since the word "all" should include every form of authority. Since Paul says very clearly that he never claimed "apostolic authority" it would be hard to then justify his telling Titus to claim it. On the flip side it would be hypocritical of Paul to tell Titus to speak "with all authority" if he didn't also. Hence I find it untenable to say that this term "all authority" can refer to some kind of "apostolic authority". Therefore, I interpret "all authority" to refer to the authority that the Lord gave to the two or three that gather together in his name in Matthew 18.