Our Need to Study and Learn from Others

[Anonymous]

then his words are on par with the first apostles. An apostle is an apostle is an apostle. We can't assign levels of value to the truth given by Jesus the Messiah.

So Steve and John is it safe to then say that you two believe someone can write and speak directly for God today and that those words have just as much authority as the Bible itself?

Yes. What was the Bible but the words God put in the hearts of its writers? What were the words of the prophets or apostles, but what God gave to them through the Holy Spirit? If God gave it, then it's all on the same level with anything else God gave. How can one "word of God" be lesser than another?

Please don't confuse the difference between a true word of God and a claimed word of God. That's where the problem comes in. LOTS of people claim to speak or write the word of God. If they make the claim and it isn't from God, then...well, then it's not from God and it has no authority.

If that is your position then should we be preserving the words of those who are apostles and prophets and adding those to the books of the Bible?

Only if the Holy Spirit leads us to. Not every word spoken by the Lord in those ancient days were recorded in Scripture. There were whole schools of prophets. Can we imagine that none of them spoke the word of the Lord at any time, if it is required to be recorded? I can't. Even John the apostle points out that Jesus did so many things that the whole world might not be able to contain the things He has done. Clearly not everything is recorded for posterity's sake.

On the other hand, if what you are getting at has to do with whether or not we could add new books to Scripture today, then I'd have to offer a cautious "yes". Sure, we could, (1) If the words were given to us by God's Holy Spirit, (2) If they were for everyone, and (3) If God told us to do so. Even were I to believe that a new writing was on par with Scripture, I'd STILL want to pray about it, present it for general study and advice (and more prayer), and compare it carefully to the existing canon of Scripture to watch for false doctrine. That's an extremely high barrier to get over. If it passed every test and God made it abundantly clear that it was to be considered Scripture, then that would be that. I'd believe it.

But I'm skeptical from the outset, so I wouldn't easily accept anything. I double-checked whether I should even accept the Bible!

And lastly, who would be the apostles or prophets today that you two consider to be on par with the original ones and what are you personally doing to follow, obey, and submit to their leadership over you if you believe some are indeed in that role for today in your eyes?

I have no candidates in mind at all. I've never met anyone that would qualify, despite hearing a number of people make that claim.

If you believe that I am open to anyone that may claim to be an apostle, or even someone that seems pretty good, that isn't so. Most of the Church would probably believe long before I did. I'm extremely skeptical, however, I also know that the traditions that we've been taught are not true. Nothing in Scripture says that Scripture cannot be added to. God says not to add to His words, yet people added books to the Bible after that was written. God is saying not to change the words He has already given, not that new revelations cannot be found ever. Nor is there anything in Scripture that indicates that the canon of Scripture is closed.

But I don't worry about these things. I'm not concerned about being fooled, because I trust in the Lord and ask Him about those things. If I cannot rely on Him, then who can I trust?


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

An apostle is an apostle is an apostle.

Some thoughts from reading the comment from J-F-C. Perhaps we should look at the possibility that the 12 and Paul were apostles of Christ. Perhaps Barnabus was an apostle of one of the apostles of Christ and Andronicus and Junia were apostles of Paul. Not a doctrine, just a thought before having my coffee.

Hi John Whitten,

That's the traditional viewpoint, but that involves picking and choosing terms from Scripture to fit a pre-conceived notion, I believed. Apostle is apostle.

There was no distinction between Paul and the other Twelve (including Matthias), yet Paul was decidedly different than they were. If God calls, it really doesn't matter who thinks you are what--if God calls you an apostle, then you are an apostle.

There's no reason why someone today could not be called exactly like Paul was called in order to fill the shoes of an apostle in today's Church to bring the Church back to the straight and narrow, and explain all the confusion that has accumulated over the past 2000 years.

I'm not credulous though, and wouldn't easily accept the claims of such a person, without many convincing proofs, as Jesus provided to prove Himself.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps Barnabus was an apostle of one of the apostles of Christ and Andronicus and Junia were apostles of Paul.

JW,

I think you are certainly on target there. The word apostle simply means messenger in the original language. We have to ask by context a messenger of what and from whom.

The word "apostle" means more than just "messenger". The word "angelos" means simply "messenger". "Apostle" means more than just a plain old messenger. An apostle was specially chosen or designated for a task, whether for a message or an action or whatever. Why would Scripture use two words if they had the same meaning? The easy answer is, to distinguish between the two in different uses. Apostles were special messengers with authority.

Paul clearly made a distinction between the original big apostles or foundational apostles and others. In 2 Cor. 12:11 where he said that he was not in any way inferior to the super-apostles (some translations say eminent apostles). The original apostles (the 12 plus Paul) were the ones to give to the whole body of Christ the whole NT revelation.

You are making an assumption here. The "eminent apostles" are not named. Guessing that they were ONLY the original Twelve is making an assumption about facts not in evidence. Such an assumption, without some evidence other than supposition, is a dangerous way to take Scripture.

Paul didn't distinguish between any of the apostles in his writings, other than this one passage noting the "eminent apostles", who are left unnamed. He didn't say that Andronicus and Junia were any less or greater than any other apostles.

If one is sent by God, and God's words are in you, then how can we say that your words are of less value than the original apostles, IF it is really God's word? That doesn't make sense. Such an idea comes close to idolizing the Twelve apostles, who were just men like any man of God. They were in the right place at the right time to be the first apostles, but I don't believe that they were necessarily the last either. Paul's example proves the point. God can make an apostle anytime, anywhere He chooses to do so.

Are there other messengers (apostles) in the lower class or non-universal sense? Sure. We can even see that 1 Thess. 2:6 where Paul classified himself and at least one if not both Silas and Timothy as apostles (compare back to 1:1).

Back up a second. You've just jumped to an unwarranted conclusion that there was a lower class, or non-universal, of apostles. What have you read here that indicates such a thing? I cannot find it. Paul didn't ALWAYS call the Twelve, "the eminent apostles". In fact, we don't know if he EVER called the Twelve the "eminent apostles", because they aren't named. He used that phrase ONCE in Scripture. The rest of the time, Paul just uses the word "apostle" and never makes any distinction among apostles.

I don't read anything about a lower class of apostle here. I read "apostle". Therefore, they are all the same without further proof.

Why are some people so concerned to preserve the unique apostleship of the Twelve? They were just men that served God, and anyone that God assigns to do that is on par with them. God is no respecter of persons.

Thus it is safe to safe we have messengers of the apostolic doctrine today but the original apostles, including Paul who claimed to be the last of all, were unique in that there words were inspired and are the highest authority along with Christ's words for the entire body of Christ. They would be the super-apostle or universally binding apostles.

Actually, Paul didn't claim to be the last apostle...

"And last of all He was seen by me also, as one born out of time." (1 Corinthians 15:8)

Last of all Jesus was seen by Paul. Now that could mean that Paul was the last to ever see Jesus--but I'm sure we'd all reject that rendering of the text if we believe we shall one day see Him. (Plus, I've seen Him several times in dreams, and I'm sure others have too.)

So, actually, in context, Paul was saying that he was the last of the people he had listed to have seen Jesus personally UP TO THAT TIME. Now even that may not have been strictly true, in that his purpose was only to say that of those people listed he was the last one, not of all Christians ever, nor even all Christians of His time period. Just those in the list he gave us.

It's not saying that Paul was the last apostle at all, but that Paul saw Jesus and was the last of those in that list to have done so.

Another thing I believe we should get straight is that the Father gave ALL AUTHORITY in Heaven and Earth to Jesus. Now the apostles were in Him and had His authority, but the same is true of us, if we are in Him. They weren't given a special deal to decree truth with the words of God, while we get second-class words of God. ALL of God's words are first-class, no matter who speaks them. Anyone that is an apostle is an apostle just like the Twelve who were first chosen.

No so-called apostle or so-called prophet today can claim the same level of authority. If they do then we are back to my question of, "do we then need to place their words in the Bible to preserve them as authoritative words for the whole body of Christ?"

I note you said, "so-called apostle or so-called prophet". "So-called" is an exhibition of doubt that they really are what they claim. We aren't talking about fakers. We're talking about real, genuine apostles and prophets. If they are fake apostles and prophets, then they don't speak the word of God. If they are real apostles or prophets, then they do speak the word of God. The difference is infinite.

The answer to your last question I answered already in another post, but the answer is: Only if God tells us to preserve their words. Not all words of God are preserved, as it abundantly evident in Scripture.

It seems to me that you primary concern is that there are people that are claiming to be apostles or prophets that really are not. That's certainly true.

But don't mix up what you are trying to accomplish here. Telling us that apostles or prophets cannot exist today, or that they are not on the same level of authority as the original Twelve or Thirteen or Fourteen (don't forget Matthias and Paul) is to say something that is NOT found in Scripture.

Also, it isn't rational to say that God's word out of the mouths of the Twelve (or Thirteen or Fourteen) apostles is greater than God's word out of another. They are still GOD'S WORDS, not man's. If they come from God, then they are ALL at the same level.

Were the words of the Twelve apostles greater than Moses' words, or Isaiah's, or Ezekiel's, or King David's, or...I could go on. God's words have always been at the same level--INFINITELY PERFECT--because they are His words. None are greater than another. It simply makes no sense.

And secondly, if these exist then please let us know who you think they are and let us know how you are submitting to their leadership and authority for if you believe they are indeed apostles whose words are universally binding then integrity would mean you yourself are willing to be under their universally binding commands and teachings, does it not?

Steve, JFC, any thoughts on whether or not those whom you consider to be apostles equal in the sense of the original ones should have their writings classified as authoritative for the entire body of Christ universally? And any ideas on who these might be today? I'm curious as to who they are if you think such super apostles still exist and are universal authorities for the whole body of Christ.

Don't forget that the apostles made mistakes too. Paul and Peter at least, are both recorded as having made mistakes AFTER they were apostles. Not everything they spoke was the word of God.

At least from my viewpoint, I haven't claimed any apostles exist today, only that they could. I stand by that if no Scriptural evidence to the contrary can be found.

For me I have yet to find any credible Charismatic or Pentecostal scholar, or any Evangelical scholar for that matter, who would say we indeed do have super-apostles or most eminent apostles around today. I do find most who see the word apostle being used in a dual sense throughout the NT. I find many Bible teachers, scholars, and those with the gifts of pastor/teachers who recognize messengers of the apostles in that some are called out to go minister by planting new works. These scholars call them apostolic messengers or messengers of apostolic doctrine but still place them underneath the authority of the original work and writings of the super-apostles who were direct representatives of Christ himself. These sub-level or secondary sense apostles would be like church planters or leaders of new movements that form new organisms within the overall umbrella of Christendom. Some people said William Carey was an apostle to India. Some have said that Wesley was an apostle for the Methodist movement. Some have said Calvin and or Knox was an apostle of the Presbyterian movement. But even those who use terms like that, like Liardon, still use the term in its secondary sense and do not rank them as equally as authoritative as the work and writings of the original super-apostles. None have I found will say their words are so inspired for everyone universally that we need to add those words to the canon.

I don't know of any apostles today either. That doesn't mean they don't exist or won't ever exist. We're talking theoretical versus actual. You have yet to show why there could not be any true apostles or prophets today, and I think that you simply feel offended by the idea and wouldn't believe it if God sent one. I see bias in your belief in this area, but not clear thinking. To believe that it is POSSIBLE for an apostle or prophet to exist today, DOESN'T mean you have to believe everyone that might make that claim. In fact, you don't even have to believe one exists. It's enough to recognize the possibility.

Perhaps there might be some "eminent apostles" appear today. Who knows? But I'm not going to limit God and say that such a thing couldn't happen based upon the traditions of men. If Scripture doesn't say it, then I'm not going to place a false limitation on what could be.

I do not see any Evangelical scholar anywhere that I can find who endorses the idea that we have apostles today who can speak with the same level of authority as do the original apostles. If so please point them out to me because I have yet to find any, at least none who are reputable people who are loyal to the distinctives of the gospel of Christ. I have found some who deny the cardinal doctrines of the faith like salvation by grace through faith, and other key doctrines like that who believe there are such super-apostles like that today. For one Rome believes it still exists with the Pope, Mormons believe it, Jehovah Witnesses' believe it, and several other groups who elevate the writings of some other leader or or set of leaders to the same authoritative status as the 66 books of the Bible.

K.R., this is rife with logical fallacies. It doesn't matter if EVERYONE believed that there couldn't be apostles and prophets today, IF SCRIPTURE DOESN'T SAY THAT THERE CANNOT BE. It's fallacious thinking to imagine that the opinions of famous teachers or scholars make a hoot of difference, if they are wrong. And I believe they are wrong, because Scripture says nothing that I can find that backs up the idea that there cannot be apostles or prophets today, nor that the canon of Scripture is closed. We can SAY that, but unless it is in Scripture it has no standing or authority, even if all the world is in agreement against it.

Likewise, comparing people that believe something differently to false religions or beliefs is a logical fallacy. A person or religion stands or falls on its own merits, not just because they happen to believe differently than you or the "orthodox" position. If one happens to agree on one point with a Mormon, it neither proves Mormonism right, nor that person wrong. The issue is the only thing that determines the right or wrong of the issue.

THE GOLDEN STANDARD IS SCRIPTURE.

I'm willing to stand up and speak out against these false traditions that tell us things that Scripture doesn't say. I'm willing to say that the tradition that polygamy is a sin is wrong. I'm willing to say that the tradition that there cannot be apostles or prophets today is wrong. I'm willing to say that the tradition that the canon of Scripture is closed and cannot be changed is wrong.

I'm willing to say all these things because I rely upon the golden standard of Scripture, not traditions. If you can prove your point from Scripture, then you have a good case. Otherwise, if you cannot, then you (or anyone) ought to step back and relax about it a bit. It's when we pursue things for which we have bias, but not solid evidence, that we create cults and false doctrine.

Study all this again, and show me:

(1) Where "apostle" is clearly distinguished for each apostle listed in Scripture under that term.
(2) Where the word of the Lord in one case is more important than the word of the Lord in another.
(3) Where Scripture indicates that there will be no more apostles or prophets in the future (of Scripture).
(4) Where Scripture indicates that the canon of Scripture is closed forever.

So please do explain further as to how you two see apostles today. Are there words to be recorded and retained as part of the canon for all believers of all ages? Who are these super-apostles for today? And if they exist and you believe they are apostles how are you doing in your submission to them and their doctrines?

I think I have by now adequately explained my position. Please ask if I haven't made myself clear or if you have any other questions. Let me know what you think too.

If I ran across a true apostle, then I would submit to them as appropriate. But like Paul to Peter, God might call me to speak up against what they are saying or doing. The apostles were guides, not the bosses.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Hi DTT,

In my point of view someone could be an apostle without authoring a book of the Bible, because in my point of view not all apostles are prophets of public revelation in the sense of books of the Bible.

Of course you are entirely correct. There were Twelve original apostles, but few of those apostles wrote any Scripture or had much of anything other than their names written in Scripture.

Based on that alone, we have no reason to believe that an apostle needs to have their words and deeds written down. Nor do they have to be especially famous either. Most of the Twelve apostles are known only by name in the Gospels. Otherwise, nothing about them in Scripture is recorded.


John for Christ

I think one has to consider the difference between an apostle and a prophet

And as I already explained I strongly suspect that people (potentially including the pope himself) do not actually have the correct definition of what an apostle is on account of words sounding like apostle were systematically transliterated to apostle in some places and translated to some other English words elsewhere.

In my point of view someone could be an apostle without authoring a book of the Bible, because in my point of view not all apostles are prophets of public revelation in the sense of books of the Bible.

One also should consider the potential difference between private and public revelation. And if there is such a thing as a public private revelation. On account of many of the Roman Catholic events of private revelation like Fatima are pronounced very publicly on Roman Catholic media oxymoronic as that might be.

Private interpretation (in 2 Peter 1:20 King James) is not the same as private revelation.

And I am not using Biblical terms but man-made terms when I refer to private and public revelation.

But double predestination, rapture, pre-tribulation rapture, post-tribulation rapture, pre-millennial, a-millennial, trinity, airplane, automobile, toast, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, North America, abortion, etc. are not words in the Bible (at least not in the original language) yet it is valid to use these words

There are numerous instances where God has warned people of individual events in advance and protected them, I would have to question if anyone who doubts that God is able to do as much has a personal relationship with God, that is not to say that someone cannot have a personal relationship with God who has never experienced such things or thinks such things are not common, but to doubt that God is able to do so.... But God warning someone to say not go to the world trade center on a certain day (if that did occur), would not at all necessarily be the same as giving a morally binding law for most people throughout the world for many centuries to come and in my opinion in some ways is a very different type of revelation than God working through man to author a book of the Bible.

10. What is the value of private revelations?

67

While not belonging to the deposit of faith, private revelations may help a person to live the faith as long as they lead us to Christ. The Magisterium of the Church, which has the duty of evaluating such private revelations, cannot accept those which claim to surpass or correct that definitive Revelation which is Christ.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendiu ... Meet%20Man

 

[Anonymous]

Hi PolyDoc,

You noted one thing that I missed. James the brother of Jesus was not listed as one of the apostles, but in Jerusalem he stood with more apparent authority than any of the Twelve apostles. By all means if Paul was an apostle, then James certainly qualified.

The artificial division between apostles isn't Scriptural. It is based upon placing the Twelve apostles on a higher level for no good reason, other than they were originally chosen by Jesus. Paul was later chosen, but he was not behind the most "eminent" of apostles--essentially saying that an apostle that wasn't chosen physically by Jesus, but by vision instead, was equal with the most "eminent" of the Twelve apostles. Paul certainly didn't think that he was a second-class apostle.

Paul's appointment as apostle is nothing that could not have happened to others, nor would we have to see that anyone chosen by Jesus had to personally see Him at least in a vision, to confer the mantle of apostleship upon him. Jesus could just as well speak to our hearts. The key is that He has chosen and appointed an apostle, no matter what the means.

And if the Canon of NT Scripture can be closed without including writings by all of the original 12 (substituting Matthias for Judas Iscariot) it can also be closed without including writings by modern-day Apostles.

How do we know that the canon of Scripture is closed? I don't believe it has to be. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I know of nothing that says it is, and I can see the possibility of more Scripture being added.

Let me give you an example of something on par with any existing Scripture:

"It is wrong to abuse drugs, just as it is to become drunken."

This is compatible with every passage of Scripture, it is the truth, and it answers a question that people today may not recognize a direct answer to in Scripture. (Can anyone find a fault in that statement?)

Should it become part of Scripture? I don't know. I wouldn't think so without some further direction from God. Hundreds or thousands of these things can be discovered simply by knowing Scripture.


John for Christ

Dr. Allen wrote:

The original apostles (the 12 plus Paul) were the ones to give to the whole body of Christ the whole NT revelation.

The original 12 disciples were:
Peter, James son of Zebedee, John son of Zebedee, Andrew brother of Peter, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew the tax collector, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.

Matthias was selected as Judas Iscariot's replacement in Acts 1 and is never again mentioned by name, although there are a few references to things "the 12" did as a group.

James, author of the book by that name, was probably the same James referred to by Paul:

Galatians 1:19 NKJV But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

(Although it is also possible that James the author was one of the two Jameses who were of the original 12.) But James the step-brother of Jesus was not a believer until after the Ressurection, yet he is called an apostle by Paul.

There is also some disagreement about which Jude wrote the book by that name – Jude, one of the original 12, or Jude (Judas) the step-brother of Jesus.

(A side note about Jesus' four brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas {Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3}: IMHO, they were the sons of Joseph and a wife {or wives} other than Mary, and so were actually Jesus' step-brothers, not His half-brothers. But that does not mean the RCC is correct in saying that Mary remained a "perpetual virgin." See Matthew 1:24-25, which could not be more explicit without being "x-rated" in saying that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus.)

Phillip was one of the original 12, but there is no NT book by him. Some of his words are preserved by Luke in Acts, but that was a specific message to a specific person. And, in fact, very few of the original 13 disciples wrote anything that became part of the Canon of Scripture.

Luke was a Gentile physician, and wrote both the Gospel bearing his name and the book of Acts. (Luke is not listed with Paul's companions who were "of the circumcision" in Collossians 4:7-11, but is named with the Gentiles listed in verses 12-14.) He was a resident of Antioch and was not one of the original disciples (the 12, the 70, or the 120 on the Day of Pentecost.) He does not claim to be an eyewitness to what he wrote in his Gospel (see Luke 1:2) nor does he claim to have seen the Risen Lord nor to have been present on the Day of Pentecost. (see Acts 1:1-4) There are three sections in the Book of Acts in which Luke uses the first person "we," and the rest of Acts is written in the third person. It may logically be concluded that Luke accompanied Paul on those journeys about which he wrote in the first person.

So if Luke can be numbered as an Apostle without having been an eyewitness to the Resurrection and the Day of Pentecost, then maybe there can be modern-day Apostles as well.

And if the Canon of NT Scripture can be closed without including writings by all of the original 12 (substituting Matthias for Judas Iscariot) it can also be closed without including writings by modern-day Apostles.

 

[Anonymous]

May I suggest another thing in considering, what or who constitutes an apostle? Judas Iscariot was one of the original 12, chosen and sent, yet he was an unbeliever from the beginning, the son of perdition. How does this affect our look at apostleship? Does this have an impact on a man's qualifications or on his ability to function in his calling?

Hi John Whitten,

Question: How do you know that Judas Iscariot was an unbeliever? Perhaps he believed, then let his greed overcome his love for the Lord...

I would certainly think that being an unbeliever would affect one's ability to function as an apostle. But Judas was sent out with the rest and apparently performed miracles along with them (i.e., casting out demons, healing the sick, etc.). It seems to me that one could not function in that manner AS an unbeliever, but that one could believe, then fall away.


John for Christ

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I don't know of any apostles today either. . . . We're talking theoretical versus actual.

JFC, By the way not offended at all....

But with that I rest my case as you too admit and believe there are no apostles for today and from that since you have not named any since the time of the original apostles (however you want to define that) then it seems safe there has not been any sense then (unless you want to go back and name someone in the past who was an apostle with the same authority).

If you ever move from the theoretical to an actual base of that then I'll be glad to disccuss it again. In theory cows might one day fly, pigs might one day swim, and discussions such as those over mere theory could go on forever with no real benefit to anyone or any real concrete situation. So my question has been answered in that regard. And by the way, Dr. Wayne Grudem has one of the most excellent sections on that very topic of the theory versus reality of "is the canon closed" if you do ever want to read a thorough treatment of that. You would probably enjoy it.

Steve, the question is still open for you and/or Ali. (1) If you actually do believe Apostles (in the original sense of the term) do exist today then who are they? (2) Also, if they are true apostles with the same authority as the original apostles (whether that be the original 12 plus Paul or all who were named in Scripture) should their words (some or all) be added to Scripture or recorded so it can be read and obeyed by all of the believers for all of the ages? And lastly (3) are there books or writings out there now by some (or in the past) that are on equal standing as the Bible and thus should be read along side of the Bible that are just as authoritative as the 66 books of the Bible?

On my end I have thought about this question (or questions as a set) for some time, and I'm always curious as to who the apostles might be and the degree of their authority in regard to their writings and teachings if they do exist. JFC says he does not know of any today and so far neither do I; so on your end is it something more than a theory for you? Have you found any who would indeed in your mind be classified as an apostle?

 

[Anonymous]

J-F-C wrote,
Question: How do you know that Judas Iscariot was an unbeliever? Perhaps he believed, then let his greed overcome his love for the Lord...

I would certainly think that being an unbeliever would affect one's ability to function as an apostle. But Judas was sent out with the rest and apparently performed miracles along with them (i.e., casting out demons, healing the sick, etc.). It seems to me that one could not function in that manner AS an unbeliever, but that one could believe, then fall away.

The references listed below are the foundation for my belief that Judas Iscariot was an unbeliever from the beginning. Add to that, the several references to his attitude regarding money and selfishness.
I disagree that an unbeliever could not function in the apostolic ministry. It happens all the time and there are many references to those who are called false prophets, apostles, shepherds, etc. Jesus even said,

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 7: 21-23

John 6:64-71
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

John 13:10-11
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Depending on how you define the word "apostle" I would argue that I am an apostle today if a certain definition is used. The question remains, if that definition is the correct definition.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi John Whitten,

I have a few comments below concerning apostles and super-apostles (not a good term, in my opinion).

I think you are assuming a bit here, having not established that "apostles" actually exist today. I think "super apostle" was just a convenient term to identify the twelve, among whom were penman of scripture. There is certainly far less evidence for apostles than there is for bishops/pastors/elders and deacons in Biblical churches. The historic position that the apostolic ministry ceased with the completion of the Bible or the death of the 12 + has some merit worth considering.

It seems to me that you might be assuming a bit yourself. The "default" or basic assumption should be that apostles COULD exist UNLESS Scripture states differently. We wouldn't have to prove that they could exist, because that is assumed without any Scriptural evidence to the contrary. Apostles existed AFTER the Twelve, thus there is no particular reason to think that apostles could not exist today. There's no "cutoff" mentioned in Scripture of which I'm aware.

But I think the problem that is arising here is a fear on the part of you and K.R. that people will pop up calling themselves apostles today, and lead Christians astray. Nevertheless, such a fear is not an excuse for denying the POSSIBILITY of apostles today.

The issue isn't whether apostles currently exist, but whether they COULD exist or not. So far neither Keith nor you have offered sufficient Scriptural evidence that apostles couldn't exist today. I'm not arguing that apostles DO exist, but only that they could exist, as God chooses. You and Keith place a limitation on God's right to raise up apostles to straighten things out today--something that is desperately needed in today's world.

Regarding your observation that the twelve were flawed men, I agree, finding it interesting, that Judas Iscariot could and did function in that role even though he was a phony from the beginning. I agree that apostles ought not be deified any more than any other leader. My concern regarding "apostles" is the number of women that I see on my friends pages on FaceBook that have appropriated the title "Apostle Judy" for example. The preponderence of such activity shows me that the great majority of believers have no idea what an apostle is supposed to be.
I was the first white man to preach at Christian Temple Baptist Church in Detroit. The people in that assembly were great. I worked with one of the deacons and heard repeated stories of guys that would come to their church claiming to be a "prophet" like John the Baptist coming out of the wilderness and having a message for the church. Their were commonalities to these "prophets", a sense of self-importance, visions of grandeur, confusing and cobbled messages, usually had been homeless for some time, and heard from God in ways that no one else could possibly understand. I fear the same is happening with the exalted title of "Apostle". Lord save us from ourselves!

Your focus seems to be on the misappropriation of the term apostle, rather than whether there is a possibility that an apostle could really exist in modern times.

Our fears shouldn't dictate what we believe. If God decides to send apostles, then who are we to deny the possibility, unless Scripture SPECIFICALLY says so. I find nothing that even clearly suggests that there will never again be apostles. Such a proposition seems to me to be based solely upon personal opinion, not upon any rational evidence against the idea that there could be apostles in modern times.


John for Christ

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Your focus seems to be on the misappropriation of the term apostle, rather than whether there is a possibility that an apostle could really exist in modern times.
John for Christ

Depending on how you define what an apostle is... perhaps if apostles do not exist in modern time we have no way to know what the Bible teaches, because God has sent no one out to teach, nor can we learn the Bible well enough to be sent out by God to teach others?

 

[Anonymous]

DTT, Very good thought. Apostle, being a generic term for messenger or one sent forth as you indicated would make a difference by considering who the sender was. Apostles of Christ would be the twelve plus Paul. All others would possibly be apostles of one of the apostles of Christ or apostles of churches, sent forth on evangelistic ventures. Sounds like a good possibility.

Hi John Whitten,

You keep overlooking Paul. Paul was made an apostle directly by the Lord. You throw him in with the Twelve as a true apostle, ignoring the fact that anyone else could be an apostle even today upon the same basis--that God chooses them.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

John for Christ wrote,

It seems to me that you might be assuming a bit yourself.

Not really, John. I am suggesting probability not conclusion.

But I think the problem that is arising here is a fear on the part of you and K.R. that people will pop up calling themselves apostles today, and lead Christians astray. Nevertheless, such a fear is not an excuse for denying the POSSIBILITY of apostles today.

People are popping up all the time making themselves out to be apostolic, speaking for God, introducing some new doctrine, theory or practice, including "spiritual gifts" that have no foundation with the real gifts of the spirit. The airwaves are crowded with the religious charlatans, leading souls astray. Neither Dr. Allen nor myself have indicated that we desire or attempt to limit God. "With men this is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible". God is sovereign, He can and does as He wills, bless His Name!!! What we are saying is that God has demonstrated His will by a pattern of establishment for the operation of His churches. That pattern excludes apostolic ministry that has the weight of the 12 apostles of Christ. He has not, by evidence continued the work of revelation by Holy Spirit inspiration since the death of the Apostle John and it is in the last written work of that apostle, that the Holy Spirit included the admonition for and the curses upon, any who would add to or take away from the words of that prophecy. Granted that such admonition is specifically relating to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, but it is in principle, applicable to the whole Bible. It is an unwritten crime to alter the pronouncements of the Most High God. Such trespass ought not to be taken lightly. There is sufficient demonstration of how the Lord feels about such things (think Korah, Miriam). God can do what He wants, but we need to pay more attention to what He has done.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know of any apostles today either. . . . We're talking theoretical versus actual./quote]

JFC, By the way not offended at all....

But with that I rest my case as you too admit and believe there are no apostles for today and from that since you have not named any since the time of the original apostles (however you want to define that) then it seems safe there has not been any sense then (unless you want to go back and name someone in the past who was an apostle with the same authority).

If you ever move from the theoretical to an actual base of that then I'll be glad to disccuss it again. In theory cows might one day fly, pigs might one day swim, and discussions such as those over mere theory could go on forever with no real benefit to anyone or any real concrete situation. So my question has been answered in that regard. And by the way, Dr. Wayne Grudem has one of the most excellent sections on that very topic of the theory versus reality of "is the canon closed" if you do ever want to read a thorough treatment of that. You would probably enjoy it.

Hi K.R.,

This isn't so much about theory versus reality as possibility versus impossibility.

You said, "...since you have not named any since the time of the original apostles...then it seems safe there has not been any since then..."

That argument isn't rational. Just because I haven't named any apostles doesn't imply that there are no apostles today. Even in the time of the apostles, not everyone knew who the apostles were. There could be hundreds of apostles today, and just because I don't know of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I not only believe that there could be apostles today, but I also believe there definitely WILL be apostles if there are not any at this moment.

For me it's not theory at all.

What you are doing is trying to demean the idea of the possibility of apostles by trying to indicate that there aren't any today, therefore there is no reason to believe there could be any apostles today. That isn't logical.

Here are the questions I believe we are looking at:

(1) Does Scripture single out the Twelve as a class different from the other apostles in Scripture?
(2) Does Scripture tell us that there will be no other apostles, eminent or otherwise?
(3) Is there any sound and rational reason to believe there will be no other apostles after the Twelve (err...Thirteen?... Fourteen?)?
(4) Could apostles exist today?
(5) Could apostles be appointed by God today?
(6) Do apostles exist today?
(7) Will apostles exist in the future?

My answers to these questions are:

(1) No. The only distinctives between the Twelve and other apostles is that they were appointed physically by Jesus, and they MIGHT be the only twelve judging the twelve tribes (though how Judas Iscariot works into that is somewhat problematic). The Twelve are not named as the "eminent" apostles.
(2) No.
(3) No. Paul proves the point, as do the others who are indicated as apostles.
(4) Yes.
(5) Yes.
(6) I don't know.
(7) I believe so, yes.


John for Christ

Steve, the question is still open for you and/or Ali. (1) If you actually do believe Apostles (in the original sense of the term) do exist today then who are they? (2) Also, if they are true apostles with the same authority as the original apostles (whether that be the original 12 plus Paul or all who were named in Scripture) should their words (some or all) be added to Scripture or recorded so it can be read and obeyed by all of the believers for all of the ages? And lastly (3) are there books or writings out there now by some (or in the past) that are on equal standing as the Bible and thus should be read along side of the Bible that are just as authoritative as the 66 books of the Bible?

On my end I have thought about this question (or questions as a set) for some time, and I'm always curious as to who the apostles might be and the degree of their authority in regard to their writings and teachings if they do exist. JFC says he does not know of any today and so far neither do I; so on your end is it something more than a theory for you? Have you found any who would indeed in your mind be classified as an apostle?

 

[Anonymous]

John for Christ wrote,

You keep overlooking Paul. Paul was made an apostle directly by the Lord. You throw him in with the Twelve as a true apostle, ignoring the fact that anyone else could be an apostle even today upon the same basis--that God chooses them.

John, I am not overlooking Paul. Paul (Saul) encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus and was discipled by Jesus Himself over a period of 3+ years. There is absolutely nothing different about Paul's apostleship, (except the dates he was trained) than that of the remaining eleven originals. Could the Lord intercept another man, hell bent on destroying Christians, transform his life and send him forth as a mouth piece for God, give him the position of recording inspired writ? Sure, He could, God can do anything, BUT who has He done that with since John (the apostle, not you and I. :lol: )? No one, but there have been many rogues that would claim the apostolic authority.

I suspect that many people today, that desire the apostolic ministry to be the same as the 12, have a real problem with accepting the Word of God as it is. I have not seen so much distorting of the Bible by symbolizing and treating it as spiritual metaphor than I have seen in the last 15 years. Such treatment of the Word is what gives license to the religious charlatans that flood the airwaves.

 

[Anonymous]

The references listed below are the foundation for my belief that Judas Iscariot was an unbeliever from the beginning. Add to that, the several references to his attitude regarding money and selfishness.
I disagree that an unbeliever could not function in the apostolic ministry. It happens all the time and there are many references to those who are called false prophets, apostles, shepherds, etc. Jesus even said,

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 7: 21-23

Hi John Whitten,

It sounds like you might take a "once-saved, always-saved" position. Is that true?

John 6:64-71
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

John 13:10-11
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

Both John 6:64-71 and 13:10-11 come years after the Twelve were chosen. There's no evidence in these passages to suggest that Judas Iscariot HAD NOT BEEN a true believer and had fallen away.

Matthew 7:21-23 indicates that there are those that prophesied, cast out demons, and did many wonderful works, all in the name of Jesus. Nevertheless, that passage doesn't indicate that those were GENUINE works. Those could have been false prophecies, imagined demons, and works perceived as wonderful, that were not particularly amazing or miraculous. This is from the mind of the guys getting in trouble. I've met plenty of Christians that I believe honestly believe they have done similar things, when they have not.

It seems to me that it takes true belief to go out in the power of God. Jesus gave Judas Iscariot power along with the others. I believe he was clearly a believer that fell away.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Depending on how you define the word "apostle" I would argue that I am an apostle today if a certain definition is used. The question remains, if that definition is the correct definition.

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

Let's work from a Biblical definition, not a personal definition. Did Jesus call you personally for the specific task of keeping Christians on the straight and narrow concerning doctrine, and to build His Church, and to repair the foundations of the Church that have eroded? Do you show the signs of an apostle?

Or did Jesus call you for a general task of preaching the Gospel, and being a part of a local church?

Can you point to anything that would indicate that God had conferred apostleship onto you as happened to Paul?

What definition would you use for "apostle" that matches with the description of apostles in the Bible? If you distinguish between the Twelve and the others mentioned in Scripture, what clear dividing line can we draw that distinguishes one type of apostle from the other?


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Hi John,

It sounds like you might take a "once-saved, always-saved" position. Is that true?

Yes, that is true, but not because I believe it. I believe it because it is true. I'm not sure we want to go down that road here.

Both John 6:64-71 and 13:10-11 come years after the Twelve were chosen.

There were only 3 1/2 years, approximately of Jesus ministry on earth, so it can't be much later. No one has ever claimed that any works that Judas Iscariot did were genuine, in fact there is nothing recorded, anywhere of his specific work except carrying the bag (treasurer).

 

[Anonymous]

Depending on how you define what an apostle is... perhaps if apostles do not exist in modern time we have no way to know what the Bible teaches, because God has sent no one out to teach, nor can we learn the Bible well enough to be sent out by God to teach others?

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

Okay, I don't know how long you've been around on planet Earth, but in my short life, I've seen little more than confusion reign when it comes to understanding Scripture. We're proving my point as I type this, by our discussion here on apostles.

The apostles existed in the early church to convey the truths that Jesus Christ had taught them to other generations. The Bible is a record of some of those truths.

Based upon the purpose of apostles back then, couldn't we reasonably say that there is a need for the same thing today?

Now I feel I have a very strong grasp of Scripture, but the same claim could be made by others as well. How can we know who is correct, so that we can safely teach the truth and learn the truth?

It's not enough that it be a personal thing for each individual, because some don't have the capability to understand on their own. They MUST have teachers. But when teachers disagree, how do we know who is true?

For that it takes powerful teachers, it takes the Holy Spirit, it takes someone acting in the office of an apostle.

Traditions won't cut it, because we still have the problem of divided traditions. Should we follow the traditions of the Roman Catholic church? Another tradition?

Trusting each person's statement that THEY have the Holy Spirit and know the truth, is likewise problematic.

The only non-problematic choice is Scripture--and that's exactly the difficulty that confuses everyone. If Scripture were entirely clear then there wouldn't be confusion.

My point here is that there is a need for apostles that the Church will hear, apostles that can help the entire Church return to the original truth. Now or in the future I expect to see apostles that will be known as true apostles.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

John for Christ wrote,

Now I feel I have a very strong grasp of Scripture, but the same claim could be made by others as well. How can we know who is correct, so that we can safely teach the truth and learn the truth?

It's not enough that it be a personal thing for each individual, because some don't have the capability to understand on their own. They MUST have teachers. But when teachers disagree, how do we know who is true?

For that it takes powerful teachers, it takes the Holy Spirit, it takes someone acting in the office of an apostle.

John, that is the very heart of our difficulty on this topic. Please consider the following scripture,

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

2 Timothy 4:1-5

Please note that Paul advise that there would turn their ears away from the truth. Paul did not advise Timothy to perform as an apostle, but as a preacher and evangelist. The Word as it was compiling and soon to be completed was sufficient for inspired authority. According to the book of Jude, the faith once delivered to the saints does not need to be defended or restored, but rather "contended" for.