Fwd: False Apostle?
naboth675
<naboth675@...> wrote:
During my time in the fellowship I have heard several ministers
refer to Wayman Mitchell as an Apostle. This has been emphaticaly
emphasised on a number of occasions by pastor Ernie Toppin in his
sermons. I have even heard Mitchell being introduced as an apostle
before he stood up to preach at a conference. As I have never heard
of Mitchell saying anything to correct this I can only assume that
he does consider himself an apostle.
The reason I am writing this is because when I heard this I did feel
a little uncomfortable with it. Yet as most od us do, we take the
word of our pastors {they must know what they are talking
about ,right? and who could possibly be so spiritual as to correct a
great man of God like Wayman Mitchell?} The problem with this is
that we ARE to judge for ourselves and not to be swayed by the
position of men.
When I looked into this in scripture I found that the only men who
were called apostles were the twelve disciples who had a unique
positionin the kingdom of God. Also Paul 'as one called out of due
season'. Over the years many have tried to show that apostleship can
be given to others as well but this is usualy proved by quoting
scriptures that can be read two ways or misquoting them altogether.
One example concerns a woman in scripture called Junia of which Paul
testifies that she is of note among the apostles. All Paul was
trying to convey was that the apostles had taken note of her because
of her loyal service. The scripture can be read two ways however and
some read it to say that Paul was calling her an apostle. The fact
remains that there is no clear evidence that I know of by which
someone in this day and age can call himself an apostle.
Consider that the bible also says that the church is built on the
foundation of Christ and THE APOSTLES. BY CALLING A MODERN DAY
DENOMINATIONAL LEADER AN APOSTLE WE ARE GIVING HIM PERMISSION TO
RESET THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH! The biblical apostles
recieved their instruction direct from Jesus {with the exception of
Paul} Those same apostles who had the personal mandate of Christ on
them and some have contributed to the cannon of scripture. Does
calling yourself an apostle today give you the right to add to the
word of God or teach with the authority that the 12 had? Of course
not.
Not only is Mitchell lauded as an apostle but others have been so
titled too. Mark Aulson was described as an apostle by Pastor David
Vicary at a U.K conference because he pioneered in the Philippines
if I remember correctly. Other U.K pastors have stated that any
minister who pioneers in a new nation is by definition an apostle.
What doies it matter anyway? Aren't we just debating titles here?
Well yes and no. A title itself is not the point. The point is
giving men an authority which they have no right to. The apostles in
the bible had an authority and a position that no other man should
have. Jesus personaly gave only 12 men {and later Paul} that
authority} An authority that the others were willing to accept in
Paul I might add.
It is important to bear in mind the techniques of certain cults here
as well. In my experience of studying cults such as the mormon I
have seen that they raise a man up to such a position that his views
are taken to be equal to the word of God and he has authority to
discern the word of God more than others do. That later point is
clearly taught in the Potters House.
While it is good to have an able minister who can rightly divide the
word of truth, nevertheless in the fellowship, pastor's claim that
a 'special annointing' is upon them to discern correct doctrine. Not
only does the bible not teach this but they have taken scripture out
of context to justify their point.
Furthermore could you explain why I have heard ministers in the
fellowship give differing interpretations of the same scripture? Why
have I myself in conversations with ministers shown them that their
interpretationof a verse was not it's context? {and I was not a
pastor} The answer is that there is no special annointing that makes
your pastor correct and Pastor mitchell has no apostolic annointing
to tell people what is correct either. That's why God gave us the
bible. So we could hold up the plumbline of the word of God and
discern for ourselves.
This overinflated view of authority in the church has caused
countless problems. {and not only in the Potters House} Pastors no
longer feel they have to listen to those who don't have
their 'special annointing'. Lesser pastors cannot contradict a self
made apostle. While I have sat and heard many sermons by pastor
Mitchell and heard many good and biblical things from him, I
nonetheless object to the level of authority he and other leaders
give themselves. I know he has got things wrong on many occasions as
well. When a man is humble then that is O.K. When he claims this
special annointing or apostolic mandate then corrcting him or
disagreeing with him becomes a challenge to the validity of his
superior annointing. This makes it very hard to correct anybody
above you and leads to an attitude which justifies a condemnation of
all who interpret the bible differently to yourself. This is the
attitude I have seen come from Mitchell and others on many
occasions.
A superior annointing or title {falsely taught} often will lead to
an inaccurate view of your own superiority and sometimes a contempt
of others below you. This is exactly what I have seen in the
ministries of men in the fellowship. I believe that to call a man an
apostle is to make him equal to the men who wrote most of the new
testament. This is error and such men are apostles falsely so called.
regards...naboth675
--- End forwarded message ---