Does LSM Hold to Apostolic Succession?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Cassidy, I was playing on your hypocrisy. If you say "Apostolic succession is a heresy," then how do you justify Lee and Nee? You are just like close to half the known Christians who believe the same thing. If you believe Lee's teaching that he is the culmination of a succession of MOTA's, then how do you say apostolic succession is heresy?

Aren't you talking out of both sides of your mouth?

"However, we know that the "apostolic succession" is a heresy." Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Set 1, Vol 4, chapter 1, section 18.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"However, we know that the "apostolic succession" is a heresy." Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Set 1, Vol 4, chapter 1, section 18.

Careful ZNP, someone might accuse you of using the ministry to attack the ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Careful ZNP, someone might accuse you of using the ministry to attack the ministry.

I find it interesting that quotes from WN are black and white on this and quotes from WL are non existent.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I find it interesting that quotes from WN are black and white on this and quotes from WL are non existent.

Where and how did you find that out?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Where and how did you find that out?

I did an online search of the phrase "apostolic succession" Watchman Nee has about 5 very clear quotes on the subject, Witness Lee has none. So then I tried a few other searches on the succession of the Popes from Peter. I found some murky quotes from Witness lee, but nothing clear cut. From my experience I think it is clear that WL and the LRC consider the claim that the Popes were a direct succession to Peter to be false. Still, he never seems to have addressed this topic directly, at least not that I could find.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I did an online search of the phrase "apostolic succession" Watchman Nee has about 5 very clear quotes on the subject, Witness Lee has none. So then I tried a few other searches on the succession of the Popes from Peter. I found some murky quotes from Witness lee, but nothing clear cut. From my experience I think it is clear that WL and the LRC consider the claim that the Popes were a direct succession to Peter to be false. Still, he never seems to have addressed this topic directly, at least not that I could find.

At what site did you do the search?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

At what site did you do the search?

http://www.ministrybooks.org/

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Terry

Careful ZNP, someone might accuse you of using the ministry to attack the ministry.

Not possible. A house divided cannot stand. You are overlooking the obvious explanation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"However, we know that the "apostolic succession" is a heresy." Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Set 1, Vol 4, chapter 1, section 18.

What page?

My Volume 4 starts with chapter two, page 181

.................................................. ..........

Page 229-230 (top) reads ...

God has rejected the church organization. We can see this from the words on God's gifts: "God has placed some in the church: first apostles..." and "He Himself gave some as apostles..." (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). The most important gift and ministry in the church are the apostles, but where are the apostles now? The Roman Catholic Church considers the pope as the successor of the apostles. However, we know that the "apostolic succession" is a heresy. We have to admit that there are no more apostles now. Why is God not giving apostles to the church anymore? To this I must answer: because God has rejected the church and her organization.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What page?

My Volume 4 starts with chapter two, page 181

I did an online search on "apostolic succession"