Does LSM Hold to Apostolic Succession?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Ohio,

Apostolic succession is entirely different from God raising up ministers in various ages. Please read the definition above more carefully. Apostolic succession is a man-made construct and the raising up of ministers to accomplish something He wants to do is His right and place. Apostolic succession replaces the authority of the Holy Spirit. The Bible does not support apostolic succession but we see clearly in the Bible that God raises up whom He will and chooses some for a specific purpose.

That is why "Apostolic Succession" is a heresy and a minster of the age is not.

Wow! This is one of those times when I ask, "What he say?" Read this post again. "Did he really say that?"

Show me one acceptable Christian scholar who will agree that sister Jean Guyon in France was the 17th century "Minister of the Age?" That's what LSM's Vision of the Age would like us to believe.

While we are on the subject, show me one acceptable Christian scholar who will agree that John Darby was the 19th century "Minister of the Age?" How about one that says Luther was the 16th century MOTA? Or one that will even consider Nee was the 20th century MOTA?

Listen Cassidy, I am hard pressed to find even one Christian scholar who even respects Lee, let alone nominate him as the mother of all MOTA's. The Ministry of the Age tag is a blinded heresy, a man-made construct, designed only to deceive God's children. The MOTA label is designed to elevate one man above the Lord, replacing the authority of the Spirit and the Bible. Haven't we been trying to tell you this for years? This is what happened to the Recovery.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Lord's work to raise up ministers to care for God's people in the 1st century up to the 21st century, in America, China, or even Timbuktu.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wow! This is one of those times when I ask, "What he say?" Read this post again. "Did he really say that?"

Show me one acceptable Christian scholar who will agree that sister Jean Guyon in France was the 17th century "Minister of the Age?" That's what LSM's Vision of the Age would like us to believe.

While we are on the subject, show me one acceptable Christian scholar who will agree that John Darby was the 19th century "Minister of the Age?" How about one that says Luther was the 16th century MOTA? Or one that will even consider Nee was the 20th century MOTA?

Listen Cassidy, I am hard pressed to find even one Christian scholar who even respects Lee, let alone nominate him as the mother of all MOTA's. The Ministry of the Age tag is a blinded heresy, a man-made construct, designed only to deceive God's children. The MOTA label is designed to elevate one man above the Lord, replacing the authority of the Spirit and the Bible. Haven't we been trying to tell you this for years? This is what happened to the Recovery.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Lord's work to raise up ministers to care for God's people in the 1st century up to the 21st century, in America, China, or even Timbuktu.

Since when did Christian scholars become the authority of the Holy Spirit?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Since when did Christian scholars become the authority of the Holy Spirit?

If God truly has raised up MOTA's in the church age, don't you think that somebody else might realize this besides the saints fooled by him?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If God truly has raised up MOTA's in the church age, don't you think that somebody else might realize this besides the saints fooled by him?

Not necessarily. It that how it worked in the Bible?

You need to stick to the Bible here and stop chasing after what "Christian scholars" think. Such scholars are like economists, stack all of them end to end and they will never come to agreement.

God's servants are usually misunderstood and discounted by the establishment. Moses was rejected by the children of Israel. The OT prophets were almost always on the out and out. Jesus was rejected by own countrymen. Paul told some that though others did not consider him an apostle he was an apostle to them. Because all in Asia "turned away" from Paul was Paul any less of an apostle?

God raises up whom He will for a special commission. That is the authority of the Holy Spirit. Whom He wills. It does not matter if you like the people God raises up. It does not even matter whether you recognize them as someone that God has indeed raised up. It does not even matter whether you agree with the commission of those whom God has raised up. And it certainly is of no account what "christian scholars" think about the topic.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

You need to stick to the Bible here and stop chasing after what "Christian scholars" think..

Whose Bible? The one interpreted by Nee & Lee, or the one interpreted over centuries by hundreds if not thousands of scholars, and held by millions of christians?

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Such scholars are like economists, stack all of them end to end and they will never come to agreement...

Number one: I disagree with this statement. There is a lot of agreement. There are of course a lot of unknowns, and much discussion, and some back and forth. But the common areas of agreement among Christian scholars greatly outweigh any differences. If there wasn't agreement, there wouldn't be discussion. Remember that we are talking about being within the common faith here, the faith held by all...
Number two: if you want to talk about never coming to agreement, try reconciling "Early Lee" with "Later Lee", or doing the same with Nee.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

God's servants are usually misunderstood and discounted by the establishment....

But when Lee et al could use "the establishment" suddenly they sang a different tune. See Moody Bible Institute and Christian Research Institute, for example. Suddenly "the establishment" is held up as a bastion of Christian orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by Cassidy

it certainly is of no account what "christian scholars" think about the topic.

Unless of course they agree with you. Then you find yourself playing golf with Hank Hanegraaf, and asking about his wife and kids.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Since when did Christian scholars become the authority of the Holy Spirit?

1. Didn't you ever hear the phrase "We stand on the shoulders of giants?" Whose shoulders do you think this refers to?

2. When the Ethiopian eunuch said, "How can I understand unless someone explains it to me?", don't you think he was looking for an expositor to help him?

3. Remember where Proverbs says (3x) "In a multitude of counselors there is safety."

4. Where do you think the "interpreted word" comes from? Christian scholars, no? Or is only one 'oracle' capable of doing so?

5. Psalm 45: "My tongue is like the pen of ready writer". We all can be Christian scholars; all of us. We can all be ready to expound on scriptures, and make a defense of the faith, should any enquire. The voice of the flock is the voice of the flock, not just one person speaking "ex cathedra".

6. Remember the "sound of many waters"?

[Cassidy]

Aron writes> 1. Didn't you ever hear the phrase "We stand on the shoulders of giants?" Whose shoulders do you think this refers to?

Sure, the servants that God raised up such as the Brethren, Zinzendorf, Martin Luther.

2. When the Ethiopian eunuch said, "How can I understand unless someone explains it to me?", don't you think he was looking for an expositor to help him?

Sure. like Philip. Philip was not "Christian scholar".

3. Remember where Proverbs says (3x) "In a multitude of counselors there is safety."

Right. It does not say in the multitude of scholars.

4. Where do you think the "interpreted word" comes from? Christian scholars, no? Or is only one 'oracle' capable of doing so?

From a variety of believers and servants of God, not just scholars.

5. Psalm 45: "My tongue is like the pen of ready writer". We all can be Christian scholars; all of us. We can all be ready to expound on scriptures, and make a defense of the faith, should any enquire. The voice of the flock is the voice of the flock, not just one person speaking "ex cathedra".

I don't think it is accurate to say we can all be Christian scholars. What you mean is that we can all expound the scriptures and each can provide a revelation as the Holy Spirit inspires us. I Corinthians 14 says "each one has..". If this is what you mean then I agree with you.

6. Remember the "sound of many waters"?

The sound of Muddy Waters? Just checking.

Seriously, if you mean by many waters all the believers sharing what the Lord has shown them and what they experienced of Christ then I agree with you in principle. But then, you are using a different working definition of christian scholars than Ohio used. He meant a class of intellectual Christians, what we call scholars in the traditional sense of the word, who validate minister's credentials. I disagree with him on that because it suggests academia is the qualification for the validation and it also usurps the authority of the Holy Spirit Who alone is responsible for the special commissions in the church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Seriously, if you mean by many waters all the believers sharing what the Lord has shown them and what they experienced of Christ then I agree with you in principle. But then, you are using a different working definition of christian scholars than Ohio used. He meant a class of intellectual Christians, what we call scholars in the traditional sense of the word, who validate minister's credentials. I disagree with him on that because it suggests academia is the qualification for the validation and it also usurps the authority of the Holy Spirit Who alone is responsible for the special commissions in the church.

How do you know what I meant? Did you even ask? I was actually referring to the collective learned and mature ones in the body of Christ. I don't care what credentials they have. Some are in academia, some are in pulpits, some are writers, some are teachers. The Bible says, "and He gave some teachers and shepherds." Are not these ones considered the respected scholars of the body of Christ? Could not we also call them "counselors" as aron has done?

Obviously you have rejected all of these brothers because your MOTA has condemned them all as "poor, poor, Christianity." What a shame to you! You take the word of just one man and condemn all others. Lee said that since 1948 there has not been one valuable book written in the whole of Christianity outside of his own books. Why do you swallow such arrogance, Cassidy? Why do you reject the whole of the body of Christ and cling to a man who cannot be trusted?

[Cassidy]

How do you know what I meant? Did you even ask? I was actually referring to the collective learned and mature ones in the body of Christ.

Ohio,

Don't be silly.

You know what you meant and I know what you meant. You said:

"Show me one acceptable Christian scholar who will agree that sister Jean Guyon in France was the 17th century "Minister of the Age?"

While we are on the subject, show me one acceptable Christian scholar who will agree that John Darby was the 19th century "Minister of the Age?"

How about one that says Luther was the 16th century MOTA?

Or one that will even consider Nee was the 20th century MOTA?

Listen Cassidy, I am hard pressed to find even one Christian scholar who even respects Lee, let alone nominate him as the mother of all MOTA's.

Maybe you don't like the sound of it played back or maybe you just lack the conviction of your beliefs so you want to change your definition in the middle of the argument. Alright. If you go with the more general definition of "christian scholar" or for that matter we can just agree on aron's definition of christian scholar, that is, most any believer (christian scholar if you prefer) can exercise this discernment about a minister with a commission, so then there are thousands, wait, tens of thousands of Christians that have confirmed the special commission and apostleship/ministry of both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

And that my friend is how it is done.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

...there are thousands, wait, tens of thousands of Christians that have confirmed the special commission and apostleship/ministry of both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee...

Our recent discussion of Nee and his place in the church, and where Nee implied his place was in the church (without saying it directly), reminded me of the above quote. According to some, Nee and Lee have "special commission", which according to their teachings was from the Holy Spirit.

But what if there are hundreds of thousands, wait, millions of Christians who have NOT confirmed the special commission and apostleship/ministry of both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee? Do we have a vote? Do we divide along "yea" and "nay" lines, with those churches who say that they have been "helped" by the ministries of Nee & Lee separated from those who have not? And for that matter, how about those assemblies that are "absolute for the ministry of Nee and Lee" versus those that are merely "positive"?

Does the fact that Watchman Nee has been read into the Congressional Record help us? Or the fact that Billy Graham has a Hollywood Walk of Fame star? Of course I am being facetious, but really the fact that Nee sold a lot of books doesn't do it for me. We might then say that Joel Osteen or Joyce Meyers or Rick Warren might have that "special commission", too. Perhaps Lee should have gotten in line behind Warren or Osteen.

And if this choosing, this setting aside is of the Holy Spirit, then how are the saints supposed to discern? We are back at square one, with a popularity contest. And so we yet again remember the scene in Mark chapter 9, "And they all were arguing among themselves as to which of them was the greatest." The devil isn't stupid. If he can get a successful ruse going he will keep it going. Why invent new tricks when you can still use the originals?

I keep thinking of recent poster amrkelly's remarks that he had 'sight', or 'discernment', to understand Nee's gift to the Body. Don't we all? I mean, we all agree there is the Holy Bible, that reveals to us God's Son, Jesus Christ the Lord. He is truly the savior of the world. We all see this, and hold it to be true. When the apostle Paul wrote that "there are apostles, prophets, and teachers" in the assembly of the faithful, how are we supposed to discern? Should we simply agree with ones who are adamant that their favorite writer/teacher/speaker is God's anointed, special vessel?

Again, it plays back into Mark 9 for me. I'd rather that we dispense with jawing over titles and positions. Just minister. There are lots of poor out there, lots of scoffers, unbelievers, sick, confused, and those who are addled by winds of teaching. Just minister. Whatever you are is what you are. At the 'Bema' God will pronounce judgment, and place you exactly where you belong; no higher or lower. What I find ironic is that we here in the flesh today are also placed exactly where we belong. If we spend our time & effort focused on church hierarchy and whatnot we simply confirm of what spirit we serve. We are convinced that we have to suss all this out for "good order in the church", even while ignoring the long trail of wreckage associated with such fixations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was actually referring to the collective learned and mature ones in the body of Christ.

I remember, for instance, when Lee would cite Kittel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Kittel

I would think how impressive, how careful and all-inclusive Lee's scholarship was. But in hindsight he was just occasionally using Christian scholarship as a prop, and for a patina of legitimacy. Look at how quickly he would denigrate anything and anyone as "poor" and "deformed" which he couldn't use. Which happens to be about 99.5% of Christian scholarship.

And that is just the learned ones. The mature ones he could use even less.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

you are using a different working definition of christian scholars than Ohio used. He meant a class of intellectual Christians, what we call scholars in the traditional sense of the word...

I notice that when Living Streamers find some "traditional Christian scholars" like Moody Bible Institute or Christian Research Institute to aid them, they do so with alacrity. But in the many instances where the Streamers deviate, they say, "Who needs Christian scholars?"