Peter, Paul, and Murray? (Part 2)
February 22nd, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Are there still apostles in the church today? Yesterday, we answered this question in the negative, and began giving the reasons for our conclusion. These reasons included (1) the qualifications necessary for being an apostle, and (2) the uniqueness of Paul’s apostleship. Today we will consider two more reasons why we believe the apostolate has ceased.
3. Apostolic Authority and the Closing of the Canon
It is our belief that, if we hold to a closed canon, we must also hold to the cessation of the apostolic office.
We turn again to Dr. Grudem for an explanation of the close connection between the apostles and the writing of Scripture:
The New Testament apostles had a unique kind of authority in the early church: authority to speak and write words which were “words of God” in an absolute sense. To disbelieve or disobey them was to disbelieve or disobey God. The apostles, therefore, had the authority to write words which became words of Scripture. This fact in itself should suggest to us that there was something unique about the office of apostle, and that we would not expect it to continue today, for no one today can add words to the Bible and have them be counted as God’s very words or as part of Scripture. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 905–906)
Hebrews 1:1–2 indicates that what God first revealed through the Old Testament, He later and more fully revealed through His Son. The New Testament, then, is Christ’s revelation to His church. It begins with His earthly ministry (in the four gospels), and continues through the epistles – letters that were written by His authorized representatives.
Thus, in John 14:26, Christ authorized His apostles to lead the church, promising them that the Helper would come and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them. The instruction they gave the church, then, was really an extension of Jesus’ ministry, as enabled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 3:5–6; 2 Pet. 1:20–21). Those in the early church generally understood apostolic instruction as authoritative and as being on par with the OT Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:9; 2 Pet. 3:16).
To cite from Grudem again, “In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the New Testament. Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolutely authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church” (Ibid., 911).
The doctrine of a closed canon is, therefore, largely predicated on the fact that the apostles were unique and are no longer here. After all, if there were still apostles in the church today, with the same authority as the New Testament apostles, how could we definitively claim that the canon is closed? It doesn’t seem that we could.
But since there are no longer apostles in the church today, and since new inscripurated revelation must be accompanied by apostolic authority and approval, it is not possible to have new inscripturated revelation today. The closing of the canon and the non-continuation of apostles are two concepts that necessarily go hand-in-hand.
4. The Foundational Role of the Apostles
Closely related to the above is the fact that the apostles were part of the foundation period of the church (Eph. 2:20). Since (following the construction metaphor) the foundation stage precedes the superstructure, it is appropriate to infer that the apostles were given to the church for its beginning stages. As Grudem writes, “God’s purpose in the history of redemption seems to have been to give apostles only at the beginning of the church age (see Eph. 2:20)” (Ibid., 911, n. 9).
Our interpretation of “foundation” (as a reference to past period within the church’s history) is strengthened by the evidence from the earliest church fathers. The foundation stage was something the fathers referred to in the past tense, indicating that they understood it as past.
Thus, Ignatius (c. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians, wrote (speaking in the past tense):
“The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people.” This was first fulfilled in Syria; for “the disciples were called Christians at Antioch,” when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church.
Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in Against Heresies, echoes the past tense understanding that Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church (in 3.1.1) and later refers to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church” (in 4.21.3).
Tertullian (c. 155–230), in The Five Books Against Marcion (chapter 21), notes the importance of holding to apostolic doctrine, even in a post-apostolic age:
No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. (Emphasis added)
Lactantius (c. 240–320), also, in The Divine Institutes (4.21) refers to a past time in which the foundations of the church were laid:
But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement might be founded and confirmed.
Other examples could also be added from the later Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Chrysostom, for instance, would be another such source (from his Homilies on Ephesians).
Our apologies for the extended survey of historical literature, but our point is simply this: The earliest church fathers, from just after the apostolic era, understood the work of the apostles to constitute a unique, “foundational” stage of the church. The fact that they reference this in the past tense, as something distinct from their own ministries, indicates that they understood that the apostolic age had passed, and thus the foundation stage was over.
(To be concluded tomorrow)
This is very helpful information and no apology is necessary, thanks. This is a very good series and I look forward to it’s conclusion.
Nate,
Your first (third) point still worries me. What are you saying about the inspiration of Scripture? You claim that Scripture is intimately tied to apostleship yet there are authors of Scripture who are not apostle. Would you say that these were uninspired people who wrote then their work was simply examined by an apostle and thereby given canonical status? This is a very loose, or dynamic, view of the inspiration of Scripture.
I think your point began dead-on, “The New Testament, then, is Christ’s revelation to His church.” The point is that it’s Christ’s revelation, NOT the apostles revelation. And clearly, as there are authors of Scripture other than the apostles, Christ revealed himself inerrantly through people other than the apostles. This does not mean those other people held an inerrant office in the church, it simply means they had the inspiration-experience of Scripture (whatever that may look like).
Furthermore, the apostles had struggles just as the rest of us. In Gal 2 Paul had to discipline Peter. Why do we hold that the apostles were somehow inerrant representatives of Christ on earth? The Gospel does not de facto work through certain people, it works through the movement of the Spirit.
I don’t have time to comment on point 4 now, I’ll do that as soon as I can.
Robert
I submitted a large post last night but it was so late most people probably did not see it. Here is a little portion of it posted again. See yesterdays postings to view the whole post.
I believe God picked out who He wanted to write the scriptures whether they were apostles or not. 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.
I’ll will add here that this does not change my view of the closing of the canon. You don’t have to close apostleship to close the canon.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Being an Apostle doesn’t mean you have to write a book, but if you did ex cathedra it would be Scripture – that’s just definitional authority of an Apostle.
Can you imagine how busy some of the Apostles were, to disconnect them from the canon b/c they all didn’t write a book is a non sequitur. Elijah was equally authoritative as Jeremiah and if he chose to write (ex cathedra) a book it would’ve been part of canon. We Paul’s unwritten teachings no inspired – of course they were. God chose some of the Apostles to write and not all of them – what’s difficult to accept about this.
Plus, you don’t know if they wrote letters. All we know is that they weren’t meant to be canonical ie Paul’s other letters to the Corinthians.
Even if you disagree you have to admit all the NT was written in the Apostolic age ie Post Christ – Last Remaining Apostle – I believe this is an important fact.
Luke and Mark were under direct supervision of the Apostles and just like Tertius who dictated Romans for Paul – did that make it less authoritative? No doubt, Luke and Mark freely wrote (ie not dictated), but they were so intimately connected with the Apostles it seems very unlikely the Apostles wouldn’t have gave them some of the stories and an overview. If I had a math prof. with me at all times, I’d have him check my homework out of convenience. How much more so to check the Gospel with an authoritative Apostle.
@ Robert
I can tell you have a heart after Christ and you’re a Calvinist woohoo~
But I think its very worth your wild to keep studying the Apostolic authority. Yes the revelation is through Christ, but what was one of the means Christ used? Apostles. They didn’t claim to be perfect, but they claim to speak the very words of God in their teachings.
I only say this b/c there are a lot of [in the inerrant/infallible Scripture camp] Calvinists out there, lots of Arminians, lots of charismatics, lots of cessationists, lots of closed canon believers, but few people who share your view of Apostolic authority.
Dear Robert and Riley,
Thank you for your comments. Grudem spends almost ten pages in his Systematic Theology addressing these issues. I wish I could reproduce that material here, as I think it is very valuable.
In short (relatively speaking), my response would be this:
1. The New Testament is the revelation of Jesus Christ for His church (Heb. 1:2). He is the canon of what is Scripture and what is not.
2. After His ascension, Christ sent the Holy Spirit as the Helper. Part of the Spirit’s role in the first century church was the inspiration of the New Testament writings (2 Pet. 1:20-21).
3. Christ also commissioned His apostles to lead and protect the church. In large part, this consisted of the teaching ministry of the apostles (which is why the NT puts such an emphasis on sound doctrine). In order to help the apostles, Christ promised to send the Spirit to them, helping them to remember what Christ had taught them (John 14:26).
4. Christ promised that the Spirit would reveal the truth to the apostles. (John 16:13-14: “When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for He will take what is mine and declare it to you.”)
5. It was the apostle’s responsibility to then declare that divinely authoritative revelation to the churches (cf. Acts 2:42; 6:2; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Pet. 3:2; and others). This teaching became the authoritative theological foundation for the early church (cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:5). It came with Christ’s authority.
6. The earliest Christians came to associate sound doctrine with that which accorded to apostolic teaching (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Pet. 3:16). This is evidenced over and over again in the church fathers.
7. All but five books of the New Testament were authored by the apostles. According to the testimony of the church fathers, Luke/Acts and Mark were authored under the direct supervision of apostles (Paul with Luke/Acts and Peter with Mark). Jude was probably authored under the supervision of James, Jude’s brother. Hebrews (which many early Christians believe was written by Paul) clearly corresponds with apostolic doctrine. Whether or not Hebrews was penned by an apostle is unknown. What is known is that its message is perfectly consistent with apostolic teaching.
8. Because apostolic doctrine came with divine authority (per John 16:13-14), and because divine authority is the necessary qualification for canonization, the writings of the apostles (namely those writings which they themselves viewed as having divine authority) were likewise considered authoritative by the early church. As Grudem writes, “If a writing can be shown to be by an apostle, then its absolute divine authority is automatically established. Thus, the early church automatically accepted as part of the canon the written teachings of the apostles which the apostles wanted preserved as Scripture” (pp. 62-63).
9. This does not mean that all of the apostles wrote books of Scripture. But it does mean that their collective teaching formed the authoritative doctrine of the church… AND, that those apostles who wrote letters (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) were recognized by the early church as the divinely authorized authors of Scripture (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 5:17-18).
SO…
10. If there are apostles in the church today, their teaching would necessarily have the same authority as the teaching of the first-century apostles (being accompanied by the authoritative promise of Christ Himself). There would be no biblical reason, then, why their letters (if written under the inspiration of the Spirit) should not be added to the canon.
Sorry for the length of this “short” reply. Thanks again for your comments.
- NB
What occurs to me about point 4 is that there is the big “C” Church and the little “c” church.
In relation to the Church, it seems obvious that the Twelve are the foundation – never to be repeated. The Church is a timeless entity and therefore the foundation of the Church is not something that will recur time and time again. This makes perfect sense in regard to the historical literature and Scripture.
On the other hand there is the church – the local church. This, obviously, has not been founded once for all. New local churches are being started all the time. It is in this context that I see apostles still existing today. Local churches are, of course, the substance of the Church, and therefore in the context of the Church, modern day apostles can only serve as steel i-beams (a sort of foundation for a room in the building), if you will, in the structure of the Church, with the Twelve as the foundation. In parallel language, there is the big “F” Foundation and the little “f” foundation. Which again, makes perfect sense in relation to Scripture.
But in the context of the local church, apostles can (and should) serve as the foundation of such churches with all the marks of apostleship as outlined in Scripture.
It is also important to note that the modern phenomenon of such isolated, distinct “churches” is foreign to the Biblical concept of the Church. Certainly there were local congregations in the early church but they were all connected to a larger network with the Twelve and the other apostles at the top.
I apologize greatly for the lack of verse references in this comment, but the sad nature of blogging is that commenters don’t have time to write some thoroughly referenced document. I do believe that if one looks at all the verses regarding apostleship and the church then the view I have just outlined is the one that makes the clearest sense.
Again, I have no problem acknowledging the cessation of apostleship if it is Biblical. In which case, I want my current writing to sharpen the Biblical case for the cessation of apostleship. As it is, the case which Nate has set forward seems like a straw-man to me, lacking a consideration of all texts concerning apostleship, and I think at the very least it would be wise for us to question it vigorously and get down to hard Biblical truth.
Robert
Robert,
Thanks for your comment.
I certainly can empathize with the difficulty of giving multiple cross references and thorough exegetical data on every point made in the comments section of a blog.
However, you are making a rather unique assertion (that there is a biblical distinction between a capital F “foundation” and lower-case f “foundation,” and that apostles [in the same sense as Peter and Paul] are necessary for both). It is a view that I have never heard before, and one that seems to contradict the early church’s understanding of both the “foundation” and the apostolic role in establishing that foundation.
A better understanding (in my opinion) is that the “foundation” for the church (at large) is the same as the “foundation” for every local church. In other words, the apostolic doctrine that undergirds the church as a whole (and as is contained in the NT) also undergirds each local church. This, in fact, corresponds with how the early church fathers understood the apostolic foundation of the Christian faith.
Because of the uniqueness of your view, it would be helpful to have at least a couple passages in which you believe your view is supported. That way, in discussing the issue, we would be able to anchor our discussion in Scripture.
Ephesians 2:20 is the primary passage I would look to in asserting that the apostles were given for the foundation of the church. Along with this would be texts addressing the authority given to the apostles by Christ (see my comment above).
We will look at church history more tomorrow, but the continuation of the apostolic office is something that cannot be defended from church history. To my knowledge, no orthodox church planter or leader in early Christian history, subsequent to the apostles, ever referred to himself or anyone else by that title.
Thanks again for your comment.
- NB
John,
I appreciate your interaction, I think we are starting to get closer to the heart of the issue. I think you made two excellent points.
(1) You said, “if he chose to write (ex cathedra) a book it would’ve been part of canon” This might perhaps underline one of our disagreements. I don’t believe that “ex cathedra” is a simple choice made by those with spiritual authority. Ex cathedra is a special anointing by the Spirit of God to write or speak infallibly. I think this is the distinction Paul makes in Gal 1:11,12.
(2) You said, “Yes the revelation is through Christ, but what was one of the means Christ used? Apostles.” I totally agree, that apostles had unique authority and that their teaching was certainly the infallible word of God. I only deny that Christ only spoke through the apostles. It may also be worth noting (again) that just because something is infallible revelation does not make it Canon.
*Please read this!
Nate,
Thanks for the long comments, sorry I don’t have a copy of Systematic Theology but I appreciate you outlining it as you do.
(1) Your third point is part of the reason I think apostleship is for today. The church today still needs leading and protecting. How is such an office no longer needed, as cessationists are wont to say?
(2) I still ask for further clarification on point 7. Perhaps it’s in Grudem, perhaps not. But my question stems from your statement: “Jude was probably authored under the supervision of James.” Now, how did this supervision work? Was Jude inspired and simply needed James’ check-off to make it canonical? Or was Jude not inspired and James, by his apostolic authority, declared Jude’s writing to be Canon (an odd situation indeed). If the situation is the former then clearly modern-day apostleship, in and of itself, poses no threat to the opening of the Canon because (i) apostles do not always write Scripture and (ii) non-apostles can be Scripturally inspired too (although it still could not be considered Canon without an apostle’s authority – according to tradition. In this case, modern-day apostles would raise the threat-level of opening the Canon, but would not themselves, by their existence, imply that the Canon is open.) If the situation is the latter then it seems this would contradict writing such as 2 Tim 3:16. In either case, the example of Jude seems to refute your position that modern-day apostles open the Canon.
*(3) This is probably the most significant point I can make (hence the star). Grudem’s quote in the 8th bullet proves my point exactly. First, he (and you) make clear that apostolic doctrine comes with divine authority. I agree. BUT the statement at the end of Grudem’s quote is absolutely crucial, and is the point I have been trying to make all along. He qualifies which of the apostle’s writings can be considered Canon by saying, “which the apostles wanted preserved as Scripture.” Again, modern-day apostles, although having (next to) divine authority, do not automatically make Scripture. They only make Scripture if they state it is to be included in the Canon.
My unshakable belief is that anyone who claims to be an apostle will not declare the Canon open and write additional books. Anyone who does so is not an apostle because Scripture has authority greater than apostles. And Scripture makes clear that it is complete, sufficient, and finished.
I hope this is now getting to the heart of the issue. It seems that what is now in order is an explanation of how something can be taken to be of divine authority yet not be Canon. I have addressed this before, yet if it is necessary, I can address it again.
Thanks so much for the interaction.
Robert
Robert,
For clarification: I understand you to say that you believe there are modern apostles who hold some apostolic authority within the church but that their authority is not equal to the authority of the Twelve and Paul.If I’m wrong on this, please correct me with a brief definition of this modern apostolic office as you see it.
It would be very helpful if you would cite a couple of key texts that you believe support your view that there are modern apostles (small “a”) so we can dialogue on this more specifically.
Thanks,
Steve
Robert,
Thank you again for your response. Allow me to reply on a couple points:
(1) I completely agree that the church still needs leading and protecting. This is part of the calling of a pastor (cf. the Pastoral Epistles) and an elder (Titus 1:9; 1 Pet. 5:1-4).
Apostles were needed in a day when the canon was not complete. Now that the canon is complete, apostles are no longer needed. The teaching of the apostles (the doctrinal foundation of the church) is contained in the New Testament. And the New Testament is sufficient for the church today (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:3-4).
Now that the foundation age of the church is over (Eph. 2:20), apostles are no longer needed.
(2) Regarding Jude in particular, you should know that some of the early church fathers (like Tertullian, Augustine, and Jerome) regarded Jude to be an apostle. (I would be happy to provide specific references if you would like.) It seems, though it is not explicit in Scripture, that Jude was considered an apostle by the early church, much like his brother James. As the half-brother of Jesus, Jude would have certainly been highly regarded by the early church.
In any case, my point was not that it was impossible for a non-apostle to write a canonical book. But rather that it is impossible to have a closed canon if there are still apostles in the church today — since the apostles were given the promise (by Christ) of receiving authoritative revelation for the church (John 16:13).
You noted that your “unshakable belief” is that no modern-day apostle would ever add to the canon. My question would be, if there are modern-day apostles of the same type as Peter and Paul, why not? If they are receiving authoritative revelation from Christ through His Spirit for His church, why should we bar that revelation from being added to the canon?
Why would modern-day apostles not want their inspired, authoritative revelation added to the other books of inspired, authoritative revelation?
(3) I would echo Steve Lamm’s comment, as (after reading your response) I was left wondering the same thing.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
- NB
@ Robert
I think Nate & Co. are asking the same questions I have, but just wanted to comment on your replies.
1. Do you think there is a separate anointing for infallible writing and speaking? I don’t think you doubt the words of Elijah, Elisha, or the other Apostles who did not write a part of the canon, but I don’t understand your logic of how their verbal infallibility could not extend to their written communication – What if they wrote the specific things they said?
Don’t you think their authority comes from the source of their communication not the means by which they communicate that source? How bout this? If someone has a prophecy and they decided to write it instead of say it would it be not as inspired?
2. I agree with your point here. I believe that there were many infallible said that were not written, but from the NT standpoint the only infallible communication (post-Ressurection) has come in the time period of the Apostles and strangely enough, died with them. This even holds true, to Grudem’s brand (and I think your) of charsmatic beliefs where you do not equate any of the revelation from tongues and prophecy w/ scripture. So even if the gifts have survived, the age of infallibility died with the Apostles (not saying they were the only infallible communicators).
Sorry for being out of touch for so long. I work Thursday nights and just got back. I am very tired – so that’s my excuse if I say anything stupid
I am not exactly sure what I am being asked for in regards to Scriptural support of my position. Obviously to give a complete explication of my position regarding the charismatic gifts, the inspiration of Scripture, and the organization of the church would be quite an extensive task. So I’ll do my best to pinpoint a few things and still get myself to bed before too long.
Of course, for a continuationist, the most obvious texts would be 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11. In both of these locations, apostle is listed alongside the other, currently recognized, offices within the church. Furthermore, both lists are tied to the image of the body (1 Cor 12:27, Eph 4:16).
I take the body image to be the local church, or, I should say, the extended network of local churches. If this statement is in need of defense, say so, but it seems clear that the eyes and feet and hands are to all be functioning together at the same time as one unit i.e. the local church. (1 Cor 12:12-26)
Within this body (which, I remind you, we are to be a part of), “God has appointed… apostles… prophets…” etc. I don’t see how it could be spelled out any clearer. Apostles are clearly just as much a part of the body as teachers, pastors, and evangelists.
Now, of course if one can prove cessationism then these verses are mute, but we are dealing with a sub-issue to the continuist/cessationist debate.
The 1 Cor 12 passage also has an interesting note that is important to defend my position against the historical disappearance of apostles. In verse 31, Paul says, “earnestly desire the higher gifts.” In context, this clearly means: earnestly desire to be an apostle, or prophet, or teacher. By inference, why would Paul command that if the command meant nothing?
I propose the reason why apostles have disappeared in the Western church is because we have trained Christians to not desire apostleship. The Catholics don’t tell people to because they have lost the meaning of apostleship and the reformed denominations don’t tell people to because of a fear that God speaking somehow destroys rather than bolsters the authority of Scripture. Listen to stories from Africa and Asia and there are certainly things that begin to sound like apostleship.
Perhaps the other thing I should support is my foundation language. My texts here would be 1 Cor 9:2, and, of course Eph 2:20. 1 Cor 9:2 makes explicit that a mark of apostleship is the establishment of at least one community of believers. Ergo, apostles today will be church-planters and missionaries. Given the context of Eph 2:20, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the “foundation” there refers to the once-for-all foundation, which is the Twelve and the other apostles and prophets of the early church that provided us Scripture. However, I would also commend the view that the “household of God” in verse 19 is referring to the whole church network of the early church and therefore when it says, “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” it means exactly what I have just argued for about the role of apostles in the body and their role as church planters. Obviously the foundation of that network was the group of apostles mentioned in the Bible, but that does not mean that as the network, and therefore, the foundation, expands, more apostles will not be appointed to build such a bulwark.
I would support my assertion that there is difference in the foundation of the Twelve and that of future apostles based on the exalted view of the Twelve in Scripture. Note especially Gal 2:2,9 where Paul goes to get approval of his message from the apostles in Jerusalem. Clearly at least James, Cephas, and John had some authority that was even greater than that of Paul’s.
If I missed anything important let me know. As always, I just want to find the truth of Scripture.
Robert (sorry for the length)
@ Riley and Robert
I guess one thing you guys did not clarify is what you exactly mean by apostle. As you have heard apostle means messenger kinda like Angel of the Lord is not really and “angel” but a messenger.
Seems like if you just want people to have the title apostle, lots of people can be apostles, and the way it was used was if Dr. MacArthur went to China he would be an apostle of Grace to You. This, I believe, is the normative sense of the word as its used with Junia, Barnabas, Andronicus, etc.
Now there are the Apostles the 12 (including Matthias), Paul, and James (i’ll call them the 15)who validate themselves with signs, wonders, and foundational. Now this is special wording of the ordinary use of “apostle/messenger,” as I said that “angel” is with the “Angel” of the Lord (who clearly is not cherubim but a messenger).
What’s my point? You can have messenger/apostles like those guys, but there is a clear distinction between them and the what I’ll call the 15 – and what the Papacy is claiming to be. Even if they all fall under the broad umbrella of “apostle” those 15 seem to be special – and it is this “specialization” i’m saying is over.
Now since you guys are charismatic, someone with a gift, say prophecy or tongues, goes to China or deep in the jungle and manifests those gifts – yea, I agree he is an apostle in that sense, but not an Apostle – of distinction as the 15. And if it is this sense that you take it, than that’s fine and I have no problem with it. This just becomes an issue of cessationist vs contiunist argument than and the apostle vs Apostle distinction is all semantics. Oh yea, I’m even willing to say there are 3 groups in the “apostle” umbrella –
A) The 12
B) Paul and James
C) Junia & Co.
Group C may very well be present (esp. if you are continuist), but A and B are not. This is all I’m fighting for. If you agree than I guess its all good if not, I’ll see you in round 4.
Also, I don’t think you guys have addressed the normative sense of the word “apostle/messenger” and why it not used in its normal sense in relation Junia etc. but some extraordinary sense (mind you I acquiesced that they can be gifted and still not be Apostles). Were Junia and Adronicus of special note among say the “group c” apostles (candidates could be Silas, Barnabas, Aquila, Priscilla, Onesiphorus)?
What the big deal is, you have to think like a cessationist here (hey, i thought like a continuist for a paragraph or two
), is can there still be Apostles like the 15 – Group A & B? This is not a matter of semantics as many cults and the Pope try to pass as this and vigorously fight for Apostolic succession. I think, that you guys are fighting for “apostleship” and if so, like I said, this may just be a semantic battle.
Please tell me if I’m wrong.
-John
@ Robert
Don’t you think that saying The 3 having more authority than Paul is a bit of a stretch?
1. Paul clearly rebukes Peter in a little bit down from Galations 2:9! He straight up owned Peter. This can’t be an unequal authority deal.
2. In Galatians 2:8 he parallels his gifting to that of Peter saying the the He who effectively worked in his/Peter apostleship to the Jews worked for him/Paul to the gentiles. Clearly as sign of equality.
3. Remember, Paul was a former Christian killer and he was getting verified by the 3 who were the head of the church of Jerusalem for the right of fellowship.
John, (although I doubt you’re checking anymore)
It is possible that this is an issue of semantics, although I don’t believe so.
The question that must be answered for that to become clear is: “What do you believe is the difference between the 15 and the others?
What I (and I think Riley) are arguing for is that there is no substantial difference between the two. Certainly the 15 (for the sake of argument) are unique in the sense that their foundation supersedes all others, but other than that, I don’t see any distinction in the Bible between the 15 and the others. All are called apostles. I can’t see where the title “apostle” means one thing in one place and means a very different thing in a different place. At least I can’t see such a distinction being made between such people as Paul and Barnabas.
The way to refute cults and RC doctrine is by the Scriptures, just as the original apostles did, not by saying that there cannot be any more apostles, which the apostles never claimed. This path is certainly more difficult and tempestuous, but I believe it is the Biblical one.
Robert