My Opinion of Current Claims to Apostleship

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eddy Knox on January 8, 2010 at 2:28pm

I have to admit that your argument is sensible in as much that if the church exists by the wil of God, then it logicly requires the same imput to mature it as it did in the first century. We believe in the same God, the same message of salvation and so on.

I am no cessationist, but I have a slightly conservative view, that God decides when and where these particular ministeries operate in people. I dont belive they happen just because we wish them to or feel they should. God decides not us. This cuts across any tradtion or party stand whatever particular motives govern these views they have.

I would like to spend some time with a present day Apostle to get a feel of what they are about though.

Eddy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy Knox on March 27, 2010 at 2:43pm

Hi Jason,

You are right. There are no passages that state catagoricly that Apostles ceased to be. However, the passages that speak of them are contextual to the time of writing, when all these gifts were present realities. Christs earthly walk was also contemporious- Paul testifying in one of his letters that many he knew of had seen the risen Lord. The church was in its infancy and everything was new and the Apostles were laying the foundation of the Church. There wasn't even a full cannon, alough there was plenty of revelation, of which the Apostolic letters are a testimony of. No doubt there was many more but we have what we have.

These were remarkable times and of course occassionly God pours out his Spirit and we see revival, in which many people find Christ as Saviour. The point is that in all of these great acts of God since the Apostolic era is that we have not seen anyone immedialty afterwards or the great reformers claiming apostolic ministery to themselves(at least not any I am aware of) The later of all people would have had some justification for this if anyone does. What we see if rather a rediscovery of Apostles teaching and all that it brings under God to us.

The new testament after the gospel accounts has no passages that teach or tell any of the church leaders to make ,create, or designate people Apostles. We do see however teaching about elders and overseers etc, in the Pastoral letters. Would not the Apostles themsleves have been the ones to do this? Or at least been involved and approved such who claimed it, that is beyond Paul-who by his own testimony was the last to see the risen Christ, which is one of the credentials of Apostleship? He says this in his letters.

No, the gift I feel is historicly finite and relates to the laying down of revelation truth for the Church. This truth is not bettered or improved upon by later individuals. We can only read it and understand it by the help of the Holy Spirit. Once laid for ever laid so to speak. As I said earlier, revivals and moves of God tend to have the tendancey to relate back to Apostolic testimony of the Son of God, people dont receive a new package and so on or supplementry revealation to bring. The stuff we need is left in the writings we have-if we believe that God is soverign over how these writings have come to us.

This revelation is the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints". A body of completed revelation that supersuedes all before it and is the last word of God to man cf, Hebrews 1;1ff. Yes, God raises up people to interpret and apply it to others, but that does not imply Apostlic gifting as a prerequisite. Only the blessing of God to communicate it to those he has chosen to hear.

We can have ministeries like prophets and teachers etc, but these are directly judged by their submissiveness to the doctrines revealed in the inspired writings God has left to us.

The Apostles were not perfect, but we can all say without doubt that they were Gods chosen vessels to bring the truth to us. "Stewards of the mysteries of God"

One claiming Apostolic authority and gifting must have the following;

Seen the resurrected Lord Jesus, 1 Cor 9:1 15:8,9.

and been appointed by him Romans 1v1- Acts 9 :15

Speak directly from God and any record of such designated scripture.1Cor 14v37,2Pet 3V16. 2Cor 5v 20.

Foundation of doctrine and principles of first church government. As mentioned above.


Miraculous testimony 1Cor 12v 11,12.

There is more than this, but this is not something modern day Apostles can claim in entirety. Once one starts to get into making such applicaton its very hard to see if anyone today can measure up to this, and if they cant then they are not Apostles. Also as I said im my first posting, there is an element of sacrifice and martydom in Apostles. No jetting around the world and making big brand name churches, book sales and the like.





Jaison Chacko said:

As long as church exists on earth, Apostles, Prophets,Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers will be appointed by God.
Where does in the Bible it is written that apostles will stop to exist ?
It is all human thoughts, having no basis in the Bible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michael on March 27, 2010 at 6:09pm

Hi Eddy K,

You wrote:

The church was in its infancy

Perhaps this is a side issue that should be taken up on another thread, but it seems to form a basis for your thinking on the matter of Apostles. And I think that you could probably rethink it. : )

How do you view those NT verses that indicate that the EKKLESIA existed prior to the first advent of Christ (Act 7:38; Heb 2:12 [Cf. Psa 22:22], Mat 18:17)? Not to mention the 110 times in the LXX (Greek OT often quoted in the NT writings) that assembled Israel is referred to as the EKKLESIA. If the EKKLESIA existed prior to Jesus' first advent and the events recorded in Acts 2 (and I am of the studied opinion that it did) then how might we understand the Greek term APOSTOLOS (Heb SHALIAKH)? The Jews maintain that the first man-to-man SHALIAKH (Apostle) we have record of was Eliezer (Gen 15:2; 24:2ff - See the Wikipedia link I posted earlier on this thread). That was a man sent by a man. What if we broadened our concept of Apostle and now focused on OT men (and women) commissioned and sent by God in His authority? There were lots!

What if we thought of Jesus as an Apostle of God (Heb 3:1)?

Did you ever wonder how it worked out, this temple imagery Paul and others used...with Jesus as the ROSH PINAH ("cornerstone") and "the apostles and prophets" being a substantial part of the living temple's "foundation" (Eph 2:20)? Did you every wonder if Paul might have included in his concept "the...prophets" of OT times...as well as "the...prophets" of his day? I have. If so, why couldn't there have been "the apostles" from OT times too? In fact, "apostles and prophets" get paired together in a lot of NT Scripture (8 times), and in some cases it could be argued that the focus of those passages included what had transpired during OT times (E.g. Luke 11:47-51; Rev 18:20-24). Something to think about, huh?

I'm not saying that the Twelve were not unique! They were, so let's lay that to rest right now. : D They saw the Lord Jesus in his incarnation and were chosen and commissioned directly by the incarnate Lord (save Matthias, who was chosen by lot). But, we've already seen that the Twelve were not the only Apostles of Paul's day. So, for instance, the criterion of being an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus did not apply to all of the NT Apostles (E.g. Timothy, who lived uncircumcised and hundreds of miles away from the Land of Israel [in modern-day Turkey], and who might not have even been born when Jesus ministered as a human on earth).

What I guess I'm trying to say here is that your narrow view of Apostleship -- limited as it is to post-incarnation times and to only those who saw the incarnate Lord -- produces a standard that cannot be met in our current day and age. But if you broaden your concept of APOSTOLOS to a more biblical usage, then you may be more open to the idea of present-day Apostleship...or, I should say "apostleship" (with a small "a").

See where I'm coming from, Eddy? : )

Shalom from Manila,
--Michael

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy Knox on March 28, 2010 at 5:23am

Hi Micheal.

I read the article you posted some time ago and the followed the link. Your argument is clear. The continuation of an elect body throught out the old and new covenants with its appointed ministers and organization under God is not a disputable matter. I am sure we both are aquainted with the scriptural support for this. Moses was an Apostle if you like representing the Old Covenant, and Jesus with his symbolic 12 Apostles, represents the new- the Typology is endless.

The main difference is of course that the Old was a shadow of the new things the Jews and now- the Gentiles have in Christ. So there would therefor have to be a new ministery and pioneers of it to establish it upon the earth- or as you see it, to continue something already started and add the new dimension of the Gospel to it.This principle is pivitol in the teaching found in Hebrews and of course in many of Pauls letters.The Messiah had the generics of this very much in mind when he talked about putting old wine into new wine skins or sewing old clothe onto new- it does not work.

We know of course that Pauls great epistle to the Romans, relates the inability of the Old System under Moses to save anyone because of human sin and inability to obey the precepts of it. Also that God has "passed over the sins commited previosly"- looking to the perfect atonement and propitiation provided in the Messiah, not just for Jews but the elect of God outside of this nation.

Now it is at this point that I also agree with you, Isaiah 53 is a condensed prophetic foundation of all that we find in the doctrine of Justification. Apostolic revelation was based four square on Messianic Prophecy being forfilled and Yeshua interpreting the meaning to them for us. Therefore, Pauls understanding of the Eklessia owing its stability and existence to the prophets of the OT has great import.

"the law and the prophets were untill John" Jesus said in the synoptics. Whatever went before is now replaced by the new. This was one of the most controversial areas of the Messianic Apostolic ministery post ressurecton/ascension era. I would say the Church in its infancy, but this seems to be a catching point. However, Paul does seem to see the Jew/Gentile relationship under the new covenant as something that was a mystery or secret, only disclosed in his time and that the church or assembly of the elect had now undergone a transformation. The messianic community was now one new man so to speak- being made out of the two of Jew and Gentile, linked to the past but only in terms of Prophetic statements and with those who God has chosen by Grace in the prior to the Christ Event. The ground has moved under the Old Systems feet. There is a link because of the nature of revelation given to Israel and naturaly some of the idioms and models of leadership ect continued with the Apostles as Jewish men would be intrinsicly part of it. Therefore, I am not suprised at the things you have cited regarding the nature of Apostleship.

But there it ends for me. The indication is that these Messianic Apostles were Jewish in the main, and part of the new prophectic escatological frame work of the messianic community. Once again a once and for all ministery for the last days. In the same way Moses and the Levitical Priesthood was in place to oversee the Old System, So now the Messiah has replaced with his priesthood and " gifts to men" for the new system.

The Apostles therefore have laid the foundation just as the OT prophets did and likewise do not have to be living or replaced by anything or anyone as there work is completed. Hebrews seems to indicate this by reffering to the Apostles in the past tense. In the passage that speaks about the message being first spoken by the Lord and being confirmed by signs and wonders etc.

michael said:

Hi Eddy K,

You wrote:

The church was in its infancy

Perhaps this is a side issue that should be taken up on another thread, but it seems to form a basis for your thinking on the matter of Apostles. And I think that you could probably rethink it. : )

How do you view those NT verses that indicate that the EKKLESIA existed prior to the first advent of Christ (Act 7:38; Heb 2:12 [Cf. Psa 22:22], Mat 18:17)? Not to mention the 110 times in the LXX (Greek OT often quoted in the NT writings) that assembled Israel is referred to as the EKKLESIA. If the EKKLESIA existed prior to Jesus' first advent and the events recorded in Acts 2 (and I am of the studied opinion that it did) then how might we understand the Greek term APOSTOLOS (Heb SHALIAKH)? The Jews maintain that the first man-to-man SHALIAKH (Apostle) we have record of was Eliezer (Gen 15:2; 24:2ff - See the Wikipedia link I posted earlier on this thread). That was a man sent by a man. What if we broadened our concept of Apostle and now focused on OT men (and women) commissioned and sent by God in His authority? There were lots!

What if we thought of Jesus as an Apostle of God (Heb 3:1)?

Did you ever wonder how it worked out, this temple imagery Paul and others used...with Jesus as the ROSH PINAH ("cornerstone") and "the apostles and prophets" being a substantial part of the living temple's "foundation" (Eph 2:20)? Did you every wonder if Paul might have included in his concept "the...prophets" of OT times...as well as "the...prophets" of his day? I have. If so, why couldn't there have been "the apostles" from OT times too? In fact, "apostles and prophets" get paired together in a lot of NT Scripture (8 times), and in some cases it could be argued that the focus of those passages included what had transpired during OT times (E.g. Luke 11:47-51; Rev 18:20-24). Something to think about, huh?

I'm not saying that the Twelve were not unique! They were, so let's lay that to rest right now. : D They saw the Lord Jesus in his incarnation and were chosen and commissioned directly by the incarnate Lord (save Matthias, who was chosen by lot). But, we've already seen that the Twelve were not the only Apostles of Paul's day. So, for instance, the criterion of being an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus did not apply to all of the NT Apostles (E.g. Timothy, who lived uncircumcised and hundreds of miles away from the Land of Israel [in modern-day Turkey], and who might not have even been born when Jesus ministered as a human on earth).

What I guess I'm trying to say here is that your narrow view of Apostleship -- limited as it is to post-incarnation times and to only those who saw the incarnate Lord -- produces a standard that cannot be met in our current day and age. But if you broaden your concept of APOSTOLOS to a more biblical usage, then you may be more open to the idea of present-day Apostleship...or, I should say "apostleship" (with a small "a").

See where I'm coming from, Eddy? : )

Shalom from Manila,
--Michael

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian McGowan on May 22, 2011 at 11:03am

Frank, some of your arguements are valid. Your belief that no one should wear gifts as "offices" is correct. But let's not throw out "accurate", just because "inaccurate" exsists! You don't throw away your money, because people are printing counterfit do you?

In revelation 2, Christ says  "I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;" But also in Rev 18 we read that when Babylon falls, "the apostles and prophets rejoice"!

When did they seise to exist in the Church? Some say with the 12 originals. Well....what do we do with Paul? Does he get a free pass because he wrote most of the NT? Even if we did give him a pass, we'd still have a problem with many others. What about Titus (which some say is a pastor)?   Paul wrote to Titus and said "I left you in Crete to finish OUR work in establishing elders in every city". What was "OUR" work? Apostolic. In Acts 14, Barnabus is reffered to as an apostle. We could keep going! 

You said "Those who claim apostleship today would themselves self servingly take the place of IC priestly pastors. They would become powerful with your delusion and rich with your alms."   If someone calls themself an apostle, and desires to "take the place" of the "IC pastor", and then take up a collection for themselves, they ARE NOT apostles!!! This is false! Do we see the apostles in the NT function this way?? Didn't Paul work with his own hands?? 

I believe ALL the gifts of Christ have been misrepresented. But lets not throw them out because of those who operate in a false spirit. If you ever meet a person who says he's an apostle, and he's excited about it...he's not an apostle! Those who I know that function as apostles are "dead as a doornail" to themselves. They are men who have been strongly dealt with by the Father and have no agenda for themselves. I can assure you...There are apostles in the Church today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rusty W. on June 2, 2011 at 12:13pm

Simple Church website really needs to put the most RECENT reply at the top of the thread. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon on June 2, 2011 at 2:57pm

Hey Rusty, I emailed the SimpleChurch folks about a problem on the site once and they fixed it rather quickly.  I don't remember how I emailed them, but it would be worth sending them the feedback.  I agree with you completely on this.  It's a bit silly to have to go all the way to page two at the bottom to read the most recent comment.

:-)

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Pavao on June 3, 2011 at 3:15pm

I think people put too much emphasis on words in the church today.

 

I have a friend who's church-planting in California. It's simply amazing to watch what God is doing through that young man. One of the people he's ministering to told him that he needs to be an apostle to do what he's doing. The young man told him, "I'm not an apostle, but this is happening."

 

Apostle is a word. It means sent one. Our church sent that young man to do what he is doing, and we sent him because we believe God said to send him. That, in my eyes, makes him an apostle by definition. Nonetheless, we don't call him that because there's no purpose to using the word. It carries too many useless or negative connotations in America today.

 

The problem is, we've put all sorts of meanings and requirements upon apostleship. Almost every definition I've ever heard of an apostle has been highly speculative and questionable.

 

One thing is clear. Others besides the twelve were called apostles. Paul is the most obvious example, but Barnabas was called an apostle, too (Acts 14:14 isn't questionable on that matter). I don't think we should be afraid to use the word. I think instead that we should reject pompous men who are trying to use the word to create authority they do not have.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Pavao on June 3, 2011 at 3:17pm

One further comment.

 

Yes, both the Bible and doctrine are important.

 

However, most Christians have a very wrong view of what Paul meant by doctrine. The most common use of that term is in the pastoral epistles. Titus 2 is a whole chapter on "sound doctrine."

 

Try reading that and ask yourself whether the doctrine being addressed in the pastoral epistles is the same as the doctrine we mean when we say that doctrine is important.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Spear on June 18, 2011 at 6:30pm

Mr Forerunner,
I liked all that you had to say but one area stuck out at me... this section:

"The home Church is Biblical.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (this is probably not being done in your house church?)
Act 2:44  And all that believed were together, and had all things common;  (is this in your house church?)
 Act 2:45  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (is this being done in your house church?)
Act 2:46  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, (is this being done in your house church?)
and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (is this being done in your house church?)
Act 2:47  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.  (is this being done in your house church?)"

I want to expand on this a bit but put it a total different light:

We live in a very different culture. Those people lived and farmed reletively close to each other and didn't have cars and nice roads so they pretty much stuck close to one small area most thier lives. Everyone knew all thier neighbors and most likely helped each other out. My guess is they bartered a lot. People were more likely closer (relationally) to thier neighbors then we are now so I can see all the above in Acts happening but not likely today.

I also want to point out that all 100% of the above listed things are not going on in ANY church today. Some churches do some things and others don't. Culturaly it is impossible. The above things in Acts are what THOSE people did. No body instructed THOSE people in Acts to do THOSE things. They just did it. You missed the point.

Why is it that people want to take the very exact actions that THOSE people did in Acts, things that NOBODY commanded them to do, turn around and say, if a house church is not doing all those things that nobody commanded those people to do, the house church is not biblical? Absurd!

Starting or having a house church is not about perfectly imitating all the outward actions of the people in Acts, a totally different culture to a tee. It's about having the same heart they had and from that heart working within the culture we have here today. AND like the people in acts, we will be doing God's work in ways nobody instructed US to do,.. yes, gathering in ways that fit with our lives... AND God will add to the church such as should be saved.

If there is anything to get from the NT church is that it was not perfect. How long did that 'daily' thing last? How long was it before problems arose in their church? If there is anything we need to take from the NT church for us today is that our churhes are not going to be perfect and like those churches, we WILL have problems too. I.C.'s aren't perfect and house churches aren't perfect. Both are going to have thier own sorts and types of problems. AND the problems we have today are not going to be exactly like the early church.

I don't see church as something that can ever be perfect or having every ounce of theology perfectly correct or there never being any kind of conflict. It's just not going to happen. It's more about how we deal with the imperfections and hericies and conflicts when they do come... and they will come. When they do come, our responces will determine whether or not we have been growing in grace... or as some will say, "grown spiritually"...our Christianity put to the test, especially when it gets personal.

Forerunner said:

 

The home Church is Biblical.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (this is probably not being done in your house church?)

Act 2:44  And all that believed were together, and had all things common;  (is this in your house church?)

 Act 2:45  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (is this being done in your house church?)

Act 2:46  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, (is this being done in your house church?)

and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (is this being done in your house church?)

Act 2:47  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.  (is this being done in your house church?)

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim London on June 18, 2011 at 9:31pm

Ryan, you say in response to "Forerunner's" thesis that the behaviors of the church in Acts 2 are "biblical," that, "The above things in Acts are what THOSE people did. No body instructed THOSE people in Acts to do THOSE things. They just did it. You missed the point."

Why think that they "just did it"? Why not view what they were doing as the expression of the Holy Spirit within them, motivating and directing and empowering them to live the way He intends His people to live? Why not think that during those days after His resurrection, when Jesus was teaching His disciples about the Kingdom of God, that they now, in Acts 2,  were living out the kingdom as He taught? We know that this is not the totality of their lives, but a summary statement of notable features of their lives, things that were, for the most part new and derived from what had happened in them. Why not think that we would have the same practices? All of these practices, aside from temple gathering (which came to an abrupt end rather shortly down the road!), are indeed taught throughout the New Testament -- as a quick reading of the letters will show -- because they are of God.

Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?

Ryan Spear said:

Mr Forerunner,
I liked all that you had to say but one area stuck out at me... this section:

"The home Church is Biblical.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (this is probably not being done in your house church?)
Act 2:44  And all that believed were together, and had all things common;  (is this in your house church?)
 Act 2:45  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (is this being done in your house church?)
Act 2:46  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, (is this being done in your house church?)
and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (is this being done in your house church?)
Act 2:47  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.  (is this being done in your house church?)"

I want to expand on this a bit but put it a total different light:

We live in a very different culture. Those people lived and farmed reletively close to each other and didn't have cars and nice roads so they pretty much stuck close to one small area most thier lives. Everyone knew all thier neighbors and most likely helped each other out. My guess is they bartered a lot. People were more likely closer (relationally) to thier neighbors then we are now so I can see all the above in Acts happening but not likely today.

I also want to point out that all 100% of the above listed things are not going on in ANY church today. Some churches do some things and others don't. Culturaly it is impossible. The above things in Acts are what THOSE people did. No body instructed THOSE people in Acts to do THOSE things. They just did it. You missed the point.

Why is it that people want to take the very exact actions that THOSE people did in Acts, things that NOBODY commanded them to do, turn around and say, if a house church is not doing all those things that nobody commanded those people to do, the house church is not biblical? Absurd!

Starting or having a house church is not about perfectly imitating all the outward actions of the people in Acts, a totally different culture to a tee. It's about having the same heart they had and from that heart working within the culture we have here today. AND like the people in acts, we will be doing God's work in ways nobody instructed US to do,.. yes, gathering in ways that fit with our lives... AND God will add to the church such as should be saved.

If there is anything to get from the NT church is that it was not perfect. How long did that 'daily' thing last? How long was it before problems arose in their church? If there is anything we need to take from the NT church for us today is that our churhes are not going to be perfect and like those churches, we WILL have problems too. I.C.'s aren't perfect and house churches aren't perfect. Both are going to have thier own sorts and types of problems. AND the problems we have today are not going to be exactly like the early church.

I don't see church as something that can ever be perfect or having every ounce of theology perfectly correct or there never being any kind of conflict. It's just not going to happen. It's more about how we deal with the imperfections and hericies and conflicts when they do come... and they will come. When they do come, our responces will determine whether or not we have been growing in grace... or as some will say, "grown spiritually"...our Christianity put to the test, especially when it gets personal.

Forerunner said:

 

 

The home Church is Biblical.

 

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (this is probably not being done in your house church?)

Act 2:44  And all that believed were together, and had all things common;  (is this in your house church?)

 Act 2:45  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (is this being done in your house church?)

Act 2:46  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, (is this being done in your house church?)

and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (is this being done in your house church?)

Act 2:47  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.  (is this being done in your house church?)

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Wood on June 20, 2011 at 8:30pm

problems arise when those destined to be royal priests avoid the one mark that makes them priests.  In the old covenant, the mark of a priest was to be girded about with a linen ephod.  In the new covenant the *mark* is quite contrary.....it's being girded with a servant's towel.

 

With that said I will attempt to explain the dilemma in the church today.   Many *apostles* have defiled the temple of God, displacing Christ Himself.  Please, in context, read 1Cor3......................the problem arises when the* laity* believe that those given to them(they are their's) no longer need the servant's towel, but a crown.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page