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

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.

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

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)

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).

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

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

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

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.

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