I suggest that those who accept these modern day “apostles,” and “prophets,” are seeking “new” signs, wonders and miracles for whatever purpose only they know. On the other hand it is an exciting, joyful and exhillariting experience to think that God has spoken to me through a source other than my own heart and what is written. Thus a place in our heart is “opened” for messages from the likes of: Hinn, Browne, Bickel, Couch and others who embrace this modern day phenom.

The message of the Gospel is salvation through Jesus Christ. When anyone changes this message, no matter what they call themselves, it has to be false and when they add anything to this message? ditto!
For those who can remember: The Shepherdship movement of the 60′ and 70’s was basically the same thing.
Sincerely,
Brother Stephen

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us beginning with baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” -Acts 1:21-22

It wasn’t enough, according to Peter, for someone to just have seen Jesus after His resurrection they must also have been a witness of His life and ministry. This was the qualification for an Apostle and this is still the qualifications.

Riley:
You admit that you have a rather far reaching way for Paul to have met this qualification but that’s not the only problem with this. What about James and Jude, the Lord’s brothers. They were not initially with the disciples folloing Jesus (Matt. 12:46). This verse if it is taken literally then Paul, James, and Jude would not have met this qualification.

This was a qualification to be one of the 12, a qualification which Matthias met. It would be difficult to maintain that this is also a qualification for the other 7 apostles listed in the Bible.
1 Paul
2 James
3 Barnabas
4 Andronicus
5 Junia
6 Silvanus (Silus)
7 Timothy

Jude (the Lord’s brother) may also have been an apostle but the Bible doesn’t directly state it.

Yours in Christ,
Riley

How about Robert Duval in the, “Apostle”? He was a “Holy Ghost Preachin’ Machine!”

I will not deny that there are men in the church today that have ministries similar to the Apostles or perform certain duties that are unique to apostles. I will even concede to the possibility of the existance of what some may call N.T. apostles (i.e. church planters, ministry founders, missionaries,etc.). However, I wouldn’t be so quick as to stamp a title on someone and say he is an apostle. I believe all who make such a claim should be tested and proved. I would even go so far as to avoid the title altogether to prevent confusion and controversy.

In Christ,

Chris

If modern apostleship, “flies in the face of Scripture,” I still don’t see it.

Acts 1:21-22 makes it clear that the Twelve can never be repeated and indeed hold a unique place in the history of the church. Your view that Paul also meets that criteria is, as you say, “far reaching.”

I really don’t see what there is to fear from modern-day apostleship. It seems like this should be something that we could be hopeful for and excited about.

Robert

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us beginning with baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” -Acts 1:21-22

It wasn’t enough, according to Peter, for someone to just have seen Jesus after His resurrection they must also have been a witness of His life and ministry. This was the qualification for an Apostle and this is still the qualifications. Therefore, since it’s been over two thousand years since the ascension of Christ and God’s not handing out alot of visions that replay the life of Christ we can conclude there are no more Apostle’s today like there was in the early church.

In Christ,

Chris

I appreciate you taking up this topic even though, as you make clear, it is not normally an issue up for debate.

First, I agree that anyone who claims to be an apostle must satisfy all three conditions laid out in Scripture. I only believe that people can be apostles today because Paul’s apostleship makes clear that being an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ can include seeing Christ in a vision, as did Paul. Therefore, it is possible for someone today to see the resurrected Christ in a vision and be commissioned as an apostle.

Second, I just don’t see how the context of 1 Cor 15 can support the claim that Paul was somehow stating he was the last apostle ever and his circumstance was a unique one. In context, it appears that Paul was defending his authority and that of the other apostles. He ends chapter 14 demanding that prophets and anyone spiritual acknowledge his writings. He begins chapter 15 by outlining the most important components of the gospel, which then is logically followed by support for what he just wrote in 14 and 15 – he, and the other apostles are to be trusted because they have all seen the resurrected Christ.

This reading is further supported by Paul’s defense of his apostleship in 2 Cor 10-13. It is remarkable that if Paul wishes to uncover the false apostles and defend his own office, that he doesn’t simply make a statement that he is the last apostle. Nor does he simply make a list of those who fulfill the requirements of apostleship. Rather, he lists all the reasons why he qualifies as an apostle and presses the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether he is true or not. Again, strongly indicating that apostleship is an office in the church, not merely a one-time phenomenon.

Any thoughts? Critiques? I look forward to the rest of your points on this issue.

Robert

Twelve tribes, twelve thrones, and twelve foundations, so how many apostles of the Lamb are there? Twelve. This is obvious, reasonable and plainly stated in the Bible?

This is a specific group of only 12 men who have a particularly Jewish flavor. They will judge the 12 tribes of Israel, their names will be on the 12 foundations of the New Jerusalem. In each case there are only 12 tribes and only 12 foundations. There can only be 12 apostles of the Lamb just as the Bible states (Rev 21:14). Just as the New Jerusalem sits on a foundation of 12 stones, so also the church was build on a foundation laid by the 12 apostles. How did they lay this foundation? It was not just by writing scripture. Only 3 of the 12 wrote scripture, but all of them preached and taught the same message about Jesus Christ.
Act 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

WHO BECAME THE TWELFTH APOSTLE?
After Judas died, Peter said that the replacement for Judas had to have been with them from the beginning. Did Peter miss it concerning this? If you think so why doesn’t the Bible correct it anywhere?

Paul, on the other hand, is not a good candidate to sit on one of the twelve thrones judging one of the 12 tribes of Israel. He was the apostle to the Gentiles not the Jews. (Gal. 2:8; Acts 22:21) Paul was also not a witness of, “all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem;” Acts 10:31, and he had not, “…companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.” (Acts 1:21) He did not qualify to replace Judas. Paul said, “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves:…” 2Co 10:12 What other number concerning apostleship could Paul have been referring to that would be so well known to the readers as to be unnecessary to state it except “the twelve?” I believe that Paul was saying he didn’t dare count himself as being one of the twelve apostles.

The Bible says, “Matthias… was numbered with THE ELEVEN apostles.” These are not the words of Peter. It is a Biblical statement of fact. The Bible also refers to “the 12” in Acts 6:2,
“Then THE TWELVE called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.”
Paul wasn’t even saved yet. That should settle it. Matthias has to be the 12th apostle being referred to. It’s a matter of Biblical inerrancy. You either have to admit that Matthias is the 12th apostle according to Acts 6:2 or else state that the Bible is in error on this point.

So the twelve apostles consist of the original 11 plus Matthias.

THE NINETEEN NAMED APOSTLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
1-12 The Twelve (Matt. 10:2,3) (now including Matthias, Acts 1:26; 6:2)

13 Paul (see
1Co 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God…
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2Co 12:11 …in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. 12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

14 Barnabas – Act 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out… (Barnabas is here called an apostle)

15 Andronicus
16 Junia
Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles… (Why were they “of note?” Were they doing significant signs?)
(Andronicus and Junia are 2 otherwise unknown apostles among a group of unknown apostles. This opens the door to the possibility that there were other unknown apostles in this group being referred to.)

17 James
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
(James, the Lord’s brother, is called an apostle but was not the same as James the brother John who was one of the original 12 (Mt 4:21))

18 Silvanus
19 Timothy
1Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, unto the church of the Thessalonians… 1Th 2:6 Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. (Paul, Silvanus, & Timothy are all here referred to as apostles)

Counting Paul this makes 7 other named apostles who are not part of the 12 for a total of 19.
Since the Bible names more than 12 apostles there is no particular reason why there couldn’t be even more today. There isn’t anything sacrosanct about the number 19. Why stop there? If there can be 19, why not 20, or 21, or nineteen hundred? I don’t mean there are going to be any more added to the 12 apostles of the Lamb. These other apostles obviously belong to a lesser and more general office of apostleship and that could go on. They would still need to be appointed and given by Jesus (Eph. 4:11) (not just self appointed). If evangelists, pastors, and teachers can still be given by Jesus today, there is no reason he could not in the same way give apostles and prophets also. The first apostles were physical eyewitness of Jesus. This ended with Paul and I don’t believe Jesus is physically appearing to anyone anymore. They would still need to show ”the signs of an apostle…” ( II Cor. 12:11) Since Paul himself is not of the 12 and he is the one who mentions a number of these other apostles he can’t be referring only to the 12 when he mentions the office of apostle in I Cor. 12 and Eph. 4.

Are these other apostles of the same authority and equal in office as the 12? In some ways obviously not. As I stated above there are only 12 apostles of the Lamb.

I believe God picked out who He wanted to write the scriptures. It’s true that all of them were either apostles or close associates of the apostles but you need to consider certain other things.

Does being an apostle automatically mean you have the authority to write scripture?
Obviously not. Only 3 of the original 12 apostles (Matthew, John, & Peter) wrote scripture. What happened to the other 9? Did they forget that they had authority to write some other books of the Bible for us?
Paul & James were apostles but not of the 12 (see above). This means that 14 of the 19 named apostles in the NT did not write any scripture. Only 5 of the 8 writers of the NT were apostles. Mark, Luke, & Jude were not apostles at all and did no miracles that we know of. And I understand that Luke wrote more of the NT than anyone else. Obviously they didn’t have to be apostles or do miracles to write scripture.
The obvious conclusion is that being an apostle does not mean you have the authority to write scripture or that God is going to pick you to write scripture. If only 5 of the 19 named apostles in the NT wrote scripture it does not establish a pattern that being an apostle equals having the authority to write scripture.
Therefore if the office of apostle continues today in some sense it would not mean that they have the authority to write scripture. If it didn’t even back then it sure doesn’t now.

If the office of apostle continues to this day it would have to have a different purpose than that of the original apostles. (Establishing true doctrine and some of them writing scripture)
That continuing purpose is stated in Eph. 4:11-13
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:”
The perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ are that ongoing purpose. This is not merely a foundational purpose. It continues to this day. We have not come in the unity of the faith, etc. yet. All 5 ministry gifts are stated as having this same purpose, including apostles. There is no differentiation in this verse between apostles and any of the other ministries. The idea that some gifts (apostles) would cease while others continue (pastors) is foreign to this verse.

Now for the main issue.
What connection can be made between the issue of apostles continuing or ceasing and the gifts of the Spirit? Nate suggests that if apostles cease then maybe some other gifts might also.
The problem with this is that the nine gifts of the Spirit are not given to the apostles only. They are given to the body of Christ and the body of Christ has not ceased. The purpose for the gifts of the Spirit are for the benefit and edification of the body. That need still exists. Their purpose is not for verifying the initial preaching of the gospel or the identity of the early apostles. Nothing like that is stated in the text. You need an entirely different line of reasoning if you’re going to try and say that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased. They don’t cease just because they don’t fit your intellectual only mode of Christianity and you wish they would go away.

Concerning this issue of apostles, let me be frank with you. There has been a significant movement in recent times to reestablish the office of apostles and prophets to the church. A number of people are claiming to be apostles and prophets. Just because I believe in principle that apostles and prophets could still exist today does not mean that I accept everyone going around claiming, “I’m an apostle,” or “I’m a prophet.” I have significant doubt about some of this. Some of these people are certainly gathering a group around themselves and exercising significant authority over them. But I have not seen many of them doing “the signs of an apostle.” Being an apostle is more than just establishing an ecclesiastical system of authority and control. Nevertheless, I have see in my 25+ years of ministry a FEW men who might qualify to be called an apostle. They’ve done the signs, established churches, and gone into new areas for Christ. Most of them don’t go around trying to convince anybody that they are an apostle. They are more interested in fulfilling their ministry than establishing a title and a following.

These are just some of my thoughts on this matter. It’s not as well organized as I’d like but it’ll have to do.

Yours in Christ,
Riley