Apostolic Authority

[cnystrom]

No problem at all brother. Look forward to it.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

God has spoken to us through His Word for the past 2000 years. His Word is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword. The Apostles and Prophets are still speaking to us today every time we pick up the Bible and read it. I think the assumption that it would be preposterous that God wouldn’t speak anything new in the past 2000 years is assuming that God is somehow constrained by time. If a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day, then maybe God hasn’t said anything new in the past two days? His Word is complete and is profitable for...


2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


What else do we need?


Having said all that, I am not necessarily apposed to someone prophesying, even today, and giving direct revelation from God. The reason i am not apposed to someone giving a prophecy is because I don’t see a scripture that says it cannot happen. However, we are told to test the spirits. If someone gives a prophecy, then they must come under scrutiny, and honestly I’ve never heard of a living prophet who has been able to stand up under the scrutiny put forth by the Word of God.


Deuteronomy 18:20-22 KJV

[20] But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. [21] And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? [22] When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord , if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.



As for apostles, we are not given any qualifications for becoming an apostle. Can women be apostles? A man with two wives? Someone who doesn’t rule his own house well? If an apostle today is just a missionary by a different name, then I’m fine with that. But if someone is claiming to be an apostle and to have new doctrine, I don’t buy it. We have the Apostles Doctrine written down for us. Why would we need a living Apostle when we have scripture?


If anyone knows of a living Apostle who is on parr with say Peter or Paul, please let me know because I want to try them like Revelation 2 talks about.


Revelation 2:2 KJV

[2] I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

 

[Shibboleth]

The word apostolos means “sent one”. There are two categories of apostolos, ones sent by Christ Jesus and ones sent by His ecclesia. The former are the ones Who’s doctrine we are to remain steadfast in and the latter are essentially missionaries who proclaim the doctrine of the former.

There is a definite distinction between the Twelve Apostles of The Lamb who established doctrine and gave us the Gospel once delivered for all the saints, and apostles that are sent out by the church as missionaries. Those sent out by the church as apostles or missionaries don’t create doctrine, they teach The Apostles’ Doctrine.

I've just been catching up on the forums recently, and this pretty fascinating, and, at least from a superficial study, seems to be true.

Throughout the Gospels and most of Acts, the term usually clearly refers specifically to the twelve, (later, minus Judas, and possibly plus Matthias).

Luke 6: 13. When it was day, he called his disciples, and from them he chose twelve, whom he also named apostles:​

Acts 1: 26. They drew lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.​

Initially, Barnabas is is obviously not an Apostle, though he is close to them:

Acts 4: 36-37. Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of Encouragement), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race, having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Acts 9:26-27. When Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.​

But later, Barnabas and Saul are suddenly called apostles (sent ones).

Acts 14: 11, 14. When the multitude saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice, saying in the language of Lycaonia, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" ... But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their clothes, and sprang into the multitude, crying out​

So what happened between chapters 9 and 14 that warrants Paul and Barnabas being called "sent ones"? They get sent, of course:

Acts 13: 1-4. Now in the assembly that was at Antioch there were some prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they served the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate Barnabas and Saul for me, for the work to which I have called them." Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia. From there they sailed to Cyprus.​

So after being sent out by the assembly (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), Paul and Barnabas are referred to as "sent ones". But then in the next chapter, Luke resumes using the term to refer to the original apostles still in Jerusalem:

Acts 15: 2. Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.​

So Luke appears to use the term apostle in two different ways, depending on if the individual was sent by Christ, or by the assembly (on behalf of the Holy Spirit). This is similar to how "Angel" can mean a spiritual being, or simply a human messenger, depending on context.

Paul seems to make this same distinction in his writing. He frequently refers to himself (and the original apostles in Jerusalem) as an apostle "of Christ":

2 Corinthians 1: 1. Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the assembly of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia:
​

While refering to brothers who have been sent from other assemblies as apostles of those assemblies:

2 Corinthians 8: 23-24. As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for you. As for our brothers, they are the apostles of the assemblies, the glory of Christ. Therefore show the proof of your love to them in front of the assemblies, and of our boasting on your behalf.​

In this case rather than planting new churches (as Paul and Barnabas did), these apostles seem to be merely observing the Corinthians on behalf of the other assemblies. Paul arguably makes this same distinction in Galatians

Galatians 1: 1. Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)​

Paul also refers to an apostle (sent one) from the assembly at Ephesus:

Philippians 2: 25-26. But I counted it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker, fellow soldier, and your apostle and servant of my need; since he longed for you all, and was very troubled, because you had heard that he was sick.​

So we see The Apostles who are the 12(ish) sent by Christ, and we see generically apostles, who are sent by assemblies (and by the Holy Spirit) either to plant new churches, or visit existing ones.

I'll propose there is actually a third class of apostle:

Hebrews 3: 1. Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus;​

Jesus, of course, was not sent by Himself, nor by an assembly, but rather by His Father.

You might say that these three types of apostle correspond to which member of the Trinity is doing the sending.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Food for thought. The martyrdom of Polycarp

Polycarp 16:2
In the number of these was this man, the glorious martyr Polycarp, who was found an apostolic and prophetic teacher in our own time, a bishop of the holy Church which is in Smyrna. For every word which he uttered from his mouth was accomplished and will be accomplished.

 

[andrew]

As they served the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate Barnabas and Saul for me, for the work to which I have called them." Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia. From there they sailed to Cyprus.

So after being sent out by the assembly (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), Paul and Barnabas are referred to as "sent ones".

So Luke appears to use the term apostle in two different ways, depending on if the individual was sent by Christ, or by the assembly (on behalf of the Holy Spirit). This is similar to how "Angel" can mean a spiritual being, or simply a human messenger, depending on context.

Shib, you're totally glossing the whole point (not the first time that has happened on this thread).

What the bible says: "The Holy Spirit said, Separate Barnabas and Saul for me, for the work to which I have called them." [So in obedience the prophets and teachers pray, fast, lay hands, and send out.] "So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia."

What Shibboleth says: "So after being sent out by the assembly (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit...", and "if the individual was sent by Christ, or by the assembly (on behalf of the Holy Spirit)".​

Do you see what happened there? Luke says the Holy Spirit spoke, and the Holy Spirit sent. You say the assembly sent, under the guidance and/or on behalf of the Holy Spirit. Why do you have to change the language?

[Side note: I think a plain reading of the passage says that the HS spoke to the named group of prophets and teachers that was serving the Lord and fasting together, not to the entire assembly, so it wasn't the entire assembly that did the fasting, praying, laying on of hands, and shoving them out the door. Bookmarked for later.]

Does the HS speak to prophets and teachers today? If not, why not?

 

[Shibboleth]

Shib, you're totally glossing the whole point

Meh. I think we're just having different interests in the discussion. Actually, I haven't even been engaging in the forums for a several weeks, and have only skimmed here, so I don't know all the details of the discussion that's been going on mostly between you and CNy, and I wasn't attempting to address them. I was just sharing an "Aha!" moment that I had while reading what AFMAMH shared.

Because I went into this thread with the acquired default assumption that apostleship was a dead office, and wondering why people might believe differently, and whether I could find a sensible definition. The posts I quoted really clicked with me, and answered that question, so for me, that was the point. You're free to have a different point, and I'm free to not engage it.

Do you see what happened there?

Yep. It says that both "they" the disciples (and I'll concede it was likely a subset of the full Antioch assembly), and the Holy Spirit are doing the sending. Its a case of agent/instrument. If I say "The bus took me downtown," or "The bus driver took me downtown," neither is wrong. They're just focusing on different aspects of the action. I even almost reworded one of those spots in my post "the Holy Spirit sent, via the assembly", so that both views were present (and I did touch on this in my final sentence), but I didn't have much time for wordsmithing, and wasn't particularly interested in the distinction, since I thought that was obvious and tangential to the issue that I was investigating. The other two passages I list that mention apostles (that aren't "The Apostles") attribute them to assemblies, so I went with the the ground-level view there. Unless we want to postulate that, e.g. the Ephesians weren't led by the Spirit to send out Epaphroditus to go with Paul.

 

[andrew]

Yep. It says that both "they" the disciples (and I'll concede it was likely a subset of the full Antioch assembly), and the Holy Spirit are doing the sending. Its a case of agent/instrument. If I say "The bus took me downtown," or "The bus driver took me downtown," neither is wrong. They're just focusing on different aspects of the action.

So you're saying it doesn't matter which is the agent and which is the instrument, or something else? To say "the bus took me downtown" is only 'not wrong' if you assume the existence of a bus driver with agency. The bus, by itself, apart from a driver, didn't do a damned thing, and while the two phrases (bus took me and bus driver took me) might be used colloquially and sloppily to convey approximately the same information (I took the bus to get here...), they are not in fact the same statement, and they are not merely 'focusing on different aspects of the action'. All of the action is taken by the bus driver; the bus merely responds to the action of the bus driver upon the controls of the bus.

Does the body of Christ spasm into action apart from instruction from the Head? (I mean, the real body of Christ, not the religious zombie pseudo-body.) Is the real body of Christ doing anything other than that which the Head directs? Can we separate the action of the real body of Christ from the direction of the Holy Spirit?

Does the HS speak to prophets and teachers today? If not, why not?

You didn't respond to this. Does the Holy Spirit speak and send today, or has that stopped? If it stopped, when and why and on what scriptural basis do you believe it stopped?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I still think you're not asking the right question. I don't know any Christian who claims the Holy Spirit doesn't speak to individuals directly. That is pretty much a given. I'm sure there are a few exceptions here and there but they'll only prove the rule. The question(s) is/are ultimately are those Words specifically focused to individuals or situations or do they have a broader focus and are they "universal" or will they ever contradict the written Word. So no, God hasn't stopped talking to us. Now the real debate should be about what He's saying to who and whether we test these messages and if so then how.

 

[rockfox]

I don't know any Christian who claims the Holy Spirit doesn't speak to individuals directly. That is pretty much a given.

I do. Some have reacted so strongly against the Charismaniacs that they teach that God only communicates to us via the scriptures today. The dead tree God; the HS as first century historical anomaly.

And I can't convey how unimaginably dangerous this POV is.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

My take:

The question(s) is/are ultimately are those Words specifically focused to individuals or situations or do they have a broader focus and are they "universal"

I call to mind that Ananias was told something that only applied to him. He was to find Saul and lay hands on him. The instruction given did not apply to the whole Church, only Ananias was to go find Saul and do the thing. And only this situation was the focus of this word. The outcome changed history and set the stage for the Church age, but the word Ananias was given was nevertheless a private instruction for a particular situation.

or will they ever contradict the written Word.

It is my understanding that they will never contradict the written word. Uh... it is also my understanding that God will absolutely tell people to do things that they are pretty sure they shouldn't do. The difference between human sacrifice and murder is one that will be lost on most people. I could make a strong case for why Abraham should have raised some questions about Isaac based on the Law of Moses. (And honestly from the beginning it was known that murder was unacceptable). Also eating food cooked over human waste was decidedly un-kosher, which was objected to, and sustained. And Peter wouldn't have gone to Cornelius unless God had shocked him well out of his understanding about what was allowed.

Which I bring up to point out: God won't contradict Himself, but He often will come close enough to the line to really mess with our sense of what exactly Scripture says.

Now the real debate should be about what He's saying to who

I don't know what to say right here. God speaks when and where and to whom He chooses. The person He speaks to will know that He is speaking. God will say what He says. Blessed be the name of the Lord.

whether we test these messages and if so then how.

Abraham obeyed. Most everyone else argued about it at least a little. Jonah took off running. Some asked for a sign, some were told which sign to expect. Some were just told and started obeying. I don't know that anyone can be really prepared for what God will say and how they'll test it when He does. I think He might enjoy the look on His servant's faces when He catches them off guard. Or maybe it's how He keeps His people humble. Probably that.


Edit: I suppose everything I just said only applies to an individual message for an individual obedience.

If a person came with an instruction he received for the Assembly, then the matter should be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. What the Holy Spirit speaks to an individual will be confirmed one way or another.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I do. Some have reacted so strongly against the Charismaniacs that they teach that God only communicates to us via the scriptures today. The dead tree God; the HS as first century historical anomaly.

And I can't convey how unimaginably dangerous this POV is.

I think this is a very good default position for most people. Instead of being dangerous I think it's very safe.

 

[rockfox]

I think this is a very good default position for most people. Instead of being dangerous I think it's very safe.

It is safe to look to the scriptures only and ignore the various false prophets running around yes. But it is very dangerous to say the HS doesn't work today, that God's only operation today is His written word. That implies He's not in you or I, that He's not working individual sanctification, that He's not individually leading you or I. In light of Roman's that's tantamount to saying no one is saved today. If its not blasphamy of the HS, it is close.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It is safe to look to the scriptures only and ignore the various false prophets running around yes. But it is very dangerous to say the HS doesn't work today, that God's only operation today is His written word. That implies He's not in you or I, that He's not working individual sanctification, that He's not individually leading you or I. In light of Roman's that's tantamount to saying no one is saved today. If its not blasphamy of the HS, it is close.

That might be another one of those arguments nobody is making. I don't know of anyone who says the Holy Spirit doesn't do the work of sanctification, not even the dispensationalist that I'm aware of. A lot of them claim that there are no more miracles to lesser or greater extent. I see your point I just don't think it's as big of a concern a the lunacies that can result when people start getting all charismatic on us.

 

[rockfox]

That might be another one of those arguments nobody is making. I don't know of anyone who says the Holy Spirit doesn't do the work of sanctification, not even the dispensationalist that I'm aware of. A lot of them claim that there are no more miracles to lesser or greater extent. I see your point I just don't think it's as big of a concern a the lunacies that can result when people start getting all charismatic on us.

No, I've personally had pastor's make the very argument I present. Well, they denied the sanctification and leading parts. I'm not sure if they deny the indwelling (I realized that aspect a bit later) but a quick google search found churches denying exactly that. I don't know how they square that with scripture and frankly, I would not be shocked to find them contradict themselves when talking about the subject of sanctification (as opposed to the subject of charismatics).

You are right though that the usual approach is simply to deny miracles to some degree. But they fail to realize the irony when they later pray for God to heal someone. I guess only garish miracles that can't be confused with the placebo affect are not for today. Now some Christians who are more consistent won't even do that, instead praying for God to help the doctor's. I give them points for consistency of belief but that puts them at odds with the scriptures on healing and praying for healing and feeds into the American tendency to have more faith in a medical doctor's ability to heal than God's ability to heal.

 

[Mojo]

When I pray with someone who is ill, I pray for the doctors, AND a miracle from God...if it be His will.