My Opinion of Current Claims to Apostleship

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim London on December 24, 2009 at 2:42pm

Hi, Frank. You say, "There are no apostles in the Church today." and "God's Spirit will not reveal anything contradictory to the Bible." Is it fair to assume that you eliminate "apostles" from the equipper-gifts given to His church, as taught in Ephesians 4:11-12? I'd be interested in your responses to a couple of questions: 1) In your view, are any of the other gifts listed in the text no longer in the church today? How do you come to your position on that? 2) What leads you to believe that "There are no apostles in the Church today"? My questions are prompted by my agreement with your later statements: "Doctrine is necessary in the life of a Christian. Ignorance of the Bible leads to confusion and heresy in the Church. Jesus is Lord".
Thanks for whatever thought-process that you can share on this!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim London on December 24, 2009 at 3:31pm

Hi, again, Frank. Another of your statements stuck in my thoughts after posting my previous response to your post. It's the well-advised comment to "Don't let your frustration with the IC draw you into a cultic relationship." Indeed, sometimes, when folks are in transition out of a setting that has been part of their identity for a long time, there is an appetite for something "refreshing" or "liberating" -- an appetite that needs to be rooted in truth. The thought that has lingered in me for the past hour is that IC itself may operate by several cultic ('cult" in the popular sense) patterns, although unrecognised and untended. In other words, cultish practice is not a danger just in "home church" (to use your term), but even within conventional denominational models as well. I'm thinking of set-ups in which the following are in evidence: 1) virtually all teaching comes through one person; 2) people are, by many devices, manipulated into loyalty to the local institution -- including expressing loyalty to the operation by funding its budget through what are called "tithes and offerings" 3) agreement to "statements of faith" which include exclusive denominational pet doctrines -- adherence to such statements being requisite for membership 4) expectation that all members of the family will participate in the programs of indoctrination of those pet doctrines, that are specially designed for every age. Other features of conventional church functioning that are conducive to cultish control will likely come to me after I submit this, but you will probably catch the frift of my thinking. What do you think? Are warnings warranted concerning a "cultic relationship" in IC as much as in SC?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Micheal Ellis Childress on December 24, 2009 at 4:55pm

Jim:

Good points.

Frank:

It would seem that history shows us that many cultic movements started as home churches.

Peace form the N's of the Earth, Mike

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Ayscue on January 4, 2010 at 6:16pm

Thanks for your perspective, Jim. I was thinking of "Pagan Christinaity" by Frank Viola when I wrote my opinion on apostleship. He believes that there are apostles out there that would come and help set up your home church. I am not against any gifts of the Holy Spirit but I am totally against one who wears the gift as an office. Jesus called the original Apostles. There are no other parallels to these men. One who places himself equally with the original Apostles is dangerous to the Church and could mislead members who are spiritually immature.

Jim London said:

Hi, Frank. You say, "There are no apostles in the Church today." and "God's Spirit will not reveal anything contradictory to the Bible." Is it fair to assume that you eliminate "apostles" from the equipper-gifts given to His church, as taught in Ephesians 4:11-12? I'd be interested in your responses to a couple of questions: 1) In your view, are any of the other gifts listed in the text no longer in the church today? How do you come to your position on that? 2) What leads you to believe that "There are no apostles in the Church today"? My questions are prompted by my agreement with your later statements: "Doctrine is necessary in the life of a Christian. Ignorance of the Bible leads to confusion and heresy in the Church. Jesus is Lord".
Thanks for whatever thought-process that you can share on this!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Ayscue on January 4, 2010 at 6:33pm

Again, Jim, thanks for your interest. I believe the IC exhibits many cultish characteristics such as those mentioned in your reply. My opinion of a primary cultish characteristic in the IC has been mainly one of the pastor as being placed in an office of priesthood over others. This error is another danger to the Church and to those who are spiritually immature. The SC certainly doesn't need self appointed apostles who would promote this cultish behavior of placing certain enlightened ones over the church. I wouldn't place the IC generally as a cult such as Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses.

Jim London said:

Hi, again, Frank. Another of your statements stuck in my thoughts after posting my previous response to your post. It's the well-advised comment to "Don't let your frustration with the IC draw you into a cultic relationship." Indeed, sometimes, when folks are in transition out of a setting that has been part of their identity for a long time, there is an appetite for something "refreshing" or "liberating" -- an appetite that needs to be rooted in truth. The thought that has lingered in me for the past hour is that IC itself may operate by several cultic ('cult" in the popular sense) patterns, although unrecognised and untended. In other words, cultish practice is not a danger just in "home church" (to use your term), but even within conventional denominational models as well. I'm thinking of set-ups in which the following are in evidence: 1) virtually all teaching comes through one person; 2) people are, by many devices, manipulated into loyalty to the local institution -- including expressing loyalty to the operation by funding its budget through what are called "tithes and offerings" 3) agreement to "statements of faith" which include exclusive denominational pet doctrines -- adherence to such statements being requisite for membership 4) expectation that all members of the family will participate in the programs of indoctrination of those pet doctrines, that are specially designed for every age. Other features of conventional church functioning that are conducive to cultish control will likely come to me after I submit this, but you will probably catch the frift of my thinking. What do you think? Are warnings warranted concerning a "cultic relationship" in IC as much as in SC?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Ayscue on January 4, 2010 at 6:44pm

Thanks Michael for your reply. I don't personally know of a cult that started as a home church. My main point is a firm disagreement of man placing any person in authority over others in the Church who would stand between them and our Lord Jesus Christ. The IC and hopefully not the SC do not need any mediator but Christ. Many Churches place erroneous esteem and honor on men who they place in authority over themselves. This in my opinion sets the stage for heresy and possibly cultish practices. The lesser consequence is Biblical ignorance.

Micheal Ellis Childress said:

Jim:

Good points.

Frank:

It would seem that history shows us that many cultic movements started as home churches.

Peace form the N's of the Earth, Mike

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy Knox on January 6, 2010 at 2:23pm

Interesting thread, I have my own reservations regarding bestowing the title Apostle on anyone today. It may appear that certain folk do similar work, like church planting evangelism, teaching etc all in one breath but I think it goes to far to grant that title to present day Christians.

The apostolic office I feel was a product of its historical relationship to Christ. The consensus of scripture indicates that Apostles either walked with Christ while he lived on earth or like Paul has a special association with Him local to that time.

They were the true first timers and Pioneers of everything we take for granted today. They were first and primary in all matters and no one can equal the foundation work they performed; things like writing of scripture and formation of doctrine all were laid down by them.

We build on that foundation, we cant go back and relay it. I know Revalation speaks of the church in a figuative sense, as the New Jerusalem,having twelve foundations-which alude to Twelve Apostles. I feel that this is a significant indication that there is a perfection in this group of men, and that it is also a limited number, and also limited in its Historical span in terms of limited time. This building rests on what these men did and what remains above, is what is added over history in the soverignty of God.

There is no problem having Pastors and Teachers etc today, because their ministery is effective only on the basis of Apostolic revelation and teaching as made personal and vital by the Holy Spirit. Which we have in the New Testament.
Why do we need an apostle today to teach us stuff, that Paul and the others have already left us under God, that we can refer to anytime since we have a Bible in front of us?

We dont need any new scriptures, men today are not part of the intial band chosen by Christ at that time, neither are they witnesses of his death and resurrection historicly in the same way Peter and the rest were, it is also quite possible they do not have the same level of miraculous attestion that the scriptures relate they Apostles had. It is also quite possible that they will not suffer the same persecution that these men did either.

We can only build on what is already laid, and as Paul wrote to Corinth, we should be careful how we build upon it. The role of ministery today is to unwrap and apply to folk the apostolic teachings, we cant reinvent the wheel here only be grateful that we have been left Gods revealed will and the faith;" once and for all delivered to the saints"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michael on January 6, 2010 at 7:45pm

Hi Frank A, Eddy K, Michael C, Jim L, et al,

Just a quick comment, then I'll revert back to "lurker mode" for this thread. The term and concept of "apostle" was not invented by Jesus, but came to him by way of his culture and people. The Hebrew equivelant to the Greek APOSTOLOS is SHALIAKH (sometimes transliterated into English as "shaliach," "shaliah," or even "shliach"). Once the concept is established in our minds as timewise pre-incarnate Jesus and thereby accepted by us as culturally Jewish, we can then use Jewish references to help define and refine our current Christian usages of "apostle." Here is a brief Wikipedia article that at least introduces the reader to the Jewish concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shliach

Shalom from Manila,
--Michael

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy Knox on January 8, 2010 at 7:29am

Thanks Michael.

This is a very revealing and helpful contribution and well worth pondering on. It pays to consider the Jewish culture, that the terms we use today are incapsulated in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michael on January 8, 2010 at 8:23am

A SHALIAKH was to be reckoned by those to whom he/she was sent as if he/she were the sender. What one did, good or bad, to the SHALIAKH was taken into account by the sender...as if the SHALIAKH were the sender him/herself.

What we gain from this more Jewish point of view is a broader concept of "apostle" then just the twelve. In fact, it can be easily demonstrated from the NT writings that others besides the twelve were given the title "apostle," Consequently, we should open up our mental categories to the idea that there were...and might still be...apostles who were independent of the twelve.

Shalom from Manila,
--Michael

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy Knox on January 8, 2010 at 9:00am

That's OK, every one does this.

I have to admit that there is a level of anxiety in me regarding present day apostleship. I agree with you on this "skitishness" and also that there are those who reject present day apostleship on the basis of disagreement with the doctrine of apostolic succession, with all that it implies.

True enough, New Testament documents we have relate a greater number of Apostles than just 12, epecially as the gospel went beyond the bounds of the jewish world.I wont deny it.

Even so, the passage in Revelation speaks about or allegorizes the symbolic number of 12. Conservative interpretation says that this refers to the apostolic ministery that undergirds the founding and establishing of the Church, i.e. the New Jerusalem. Once again just because an apostle dies, does not mean that their work is dead also. The effects and benifits of it are continued under Gods soverignty and grace. Think about it for a second, Paul and the rest sleep in Christ so to speak- yet we primarily rely on their recorded experiences and teaching about Christ today- we even claim (and know of course) that God speaks to us throughout writings that were originly written by men no longer with us! Beyond this many of us read books by Christians who also have departed this world and derive benifit from them.

I am sure you follow my impication here, simply; we can still be under apostolic ministery by virtue that their office, under God spans history, it is not so much that they are not with us, but rather that what God ordained to be made effectual through them he still owns and sanctifies to us. From that comes the other offices, like prophecy pastoring, teaching and so on, all based on what these guys laid down in Christ.These offices build on what has been laid down, the founder of the business does not need to be around, His boss is though. Again, the USA did not cease to be when the founding fathers died, people built on what they left.

One further point here is that of Church history. We need to look at it and see where,when and if Apostles acutually revived, one would expect that this would be the case, as the need of mankind to hear Gods message is not just for the 1st century or the 21st. What can be seen is preaching and revivals,reformation and establishment of Churches.Based on what? I cant see a clear out and out example of a Pauline or Petrine like figure. What is seen though are people like Wesley, who God used as they read and understood the message and teaching of the Apostles testimony about Christ.

These I believe are the ministery Gifts; at work- Evangelism, Pastoring etc. God dispenses these gifts "severaly as He wills", and at times with some and not others also at times and not others. Our question is wether this apostolic gift comes in like manner along with the other ministery giftssince the 1st century..

I could almost conceed that the office of Apostle could be something that God soverignly appoints to men for certain times in His plan to move his Church along or more possibly (hypotheticly speaking) to reestablish the Church after periods of near extinction and non evangelised areas. However, this seems to have happened without people always being called Apostles or called by God to such.

Further I can relate to your reasoning (if apostles exist today) that the question is how do we identify the credible gift in anybody?, I suppose the answer would be the same way we do this to substantiate and confirm any other gift.

An interesting study would be to scan the New Testament and note all the passages that indicate and descriibe the nature and work of apostleship and compare it with what we know about folk who are deemed such today.

How do they compare?

What does each party offer to underpin their claim to Apostleship? ,

Can this be supported by evidences?

Have they genuinly founded Churches or procured a following from existing fellowships?

What can you see that is justifiable critisism their lives and indeed has this been heard?

Persecution; what kind of price do they pay for their ministery? If there is controversy, what are the reasons for it?

Miraculous testimonies, this is a subject on its own. Even so, look at what happend in Acts and compare with some of the claims that abound today that individuals have the same miraculous ability as the Apostles.

God Bless

Eddy.




In theory if the office is in place today, I think it is a comparitive mathmatical rarity- ie the number of Christians there are compared to the number of Apostles. Many are claiming it as you know.

Jim London said:

P.S.
Eddy, I saw, after posting my previous reply, that I mis-spelled your name! Apology!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim London on January 8, 2010 at 1:52pm

Thanks, Eddy, for your thoughtful effort to lay out your thoughts on this apostleship topic. What I look at, as consciously as I can, is how we arrive at our conclusions. Having said that, I'm sure that I inadvertantly overlook a lot of stuff that should have been considered in the process of developing conclusions -- because I am undoubtedly wearing some kind of bias-blinders that filter out evidence that's actually there. Something like doing bad detective work, I suppose. But in this case, I think there is evidence concerning apostleship that some adherents to "Conservative interpretation" are actually closing their eyes to, in order to preserve a view that they think (mistakenly, I believe) is the safest view -- safe, not in terms of being certain to include all the evidence, but safe in the sense that it's the easiest way to avoid controversy. In this case, say there are no apostles, and then there's no controversy about who is, or isn't, an apostle sent by God. Unfortunately, a significant portion of the church makes decisions on doctrinal issues simply by that pragmatic principle; then that line of thinking, based on pragmatism or upon some reaction to an abuse of some sort, becomes the party line, gains some longevity over time, and then becomes written in stone as if written by the hand of God! That process has, in some quarters, been the way that denominations or traditions have come to convictions about a host of topics -- views of the last days, spiritual gifts, etc, etc -- you know the list.
If we step aside from a background denominational position or long-espoused tradition, and look at the Bible as we see it, would we decide that Ephesians 4:11 (... gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers) actually means "gave evangelists, pastors, teachers"? We already know with certainty that many, other than "the twelve", were apostles. We do not have any Biblical evidence that the gifts of apostles and prophets had an expiry date. In fact, we are assured that they are crucial to the maturing of the church, into Christ. (Eph 4) Can we, then, legitimately reference a traditional interpretation as authority over scripture? An apostle is one who is sent under God's authority, with the primary task of leading the extension of the gospel. For sure, they are not self-appointed. "Self-appointed apostles" are not apostles of Christ, since they do not have His authority, no matter how insistent they are. The same goes for prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers.
Eddy, I'm betting that if a half-dozen folks who have a decent acquaintance with the arrangement of the Bible would sit around a table with their Bibles, a good concordance, and a good Bible dictionary, then within a couple of hours, they could find enough plain-reading biblical criteria that would be adequate for discerning God-sent apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors, teachers. There would no longer be a need to feel anxious about believing that there are such gifts today. Anxiety dissipates, because false claims can be sorted out by Biblical criteria.
If "the twelve" are unique in some ways, so be it. Biblically, we know that there were more than the twelve. We don't know that God ever recinded those gifts. Do we want to do what He did not do?
I've spoken candidly (as I believe you have), but this is so important, because we're dealing with the gifts of God, with the nature of His church, and with the extension of His kingdom.
I hope we can keep talking! What do you think, setting aside what others may think, of what I'm saying here?

Eddy Knox said:

That's OK, every one does this.

I have to admit that there is a level of anxiety in me regarding present day apostleship. I agree with you on this "skitishness" and also that there are those who reject present day apostleship on the basis of disagreement with the doctrine of apostolic succession, with all that it implies.

True enough, New Testament documents we have relate a greater number of Apostles than just 12, epecially as the gospel went beyond the bounds of the jewish world.I wont deny it.

Even so, the passage in Revelation speaks about or allegorizes the symbolic number of 12. Conservative interpretation says that this refers to the apostolic ministery that undergirds the founding and establishing of the Church, i.e. the New Jerusalem. Once again just because an apostle dies, does not mean that their work is dead also. The effects and benifits of it are continued under Gods soverignty and grace. Think about it for a second, Paul and the rest sleep in Christ so to speak- yet we primarily rely on their recorded experiences and teaching about Christ today- we even claim (and know of course) that God speaks to us throughout writings that were originly written by men no longer with us! Beyond this many of us read books by Christians who also have departed this world and derive benifit from them.

I am sure you follow my impication here, simply; we can still be under apostolic ministery by virtue that their office, under God spans history, it is not so much that they are not with us, but rather that what God ordained to be made effectual through them he still owns and sanctifies to us. From that comes the other offices, like prophecy pastoring, teaching and so on, all based on what these guys laid down in Christ.These offices build on what has been laid down, the founder of the business does not need to be around, His boss is though. Again, the USA did not cease to be when the founding fathers died, people built on what they left.

One further point here is that of Church history. We need to look at it and see where,when and if Apostles acutually revived, one would expect that this would be the case, as the need of mankind to hear Gods message is not just for the 1st century or the 21st. What can be seen is preaching and revivals,reformation and establishment of Churches.Based on what? I cant see a clear out and out example of a Pauline or Petrine like figure. What is seen though are people like Wesley, who God used as they read and understood the message and teaching of the Apostles testimony about Christ.

These I believe are the ministery Gifts; at work- Evangelism, Pastoring etc. God dispenses these gifts "severaly as He wills", and at times with some and not others also at times and not others. Our question is wether this apostolic gift comes in like manner along with the other ministery giftssince the 1st century..

I could almost conceed that the office of Apostle could be something that God soverignly appoints to men for certain times in His plan to move his Church along or more possibly (hypotheticly speaking) to reestablish the Church after periods of near extinction and non evangelised areas. However, this seems to have happened without people always being called Apostles or called by God to such.

Further I can relate to your reasoning (if apostles exist today) that the question is how do we identify the credible gift in anybody?, I suppose the answer would be the same way we do this to substantiate and confirm any other gift.

An interesting study would be to scan the New Testament and note all the passages that indicate and descriibe the nature and work of apostleship and compare it with what we know about folk who are deemed such today.

How do they compare?

What does each party offer to underpin their claim to Apostleship? ,

Can this be supported by evidences?

Have they genuinly founded Churches or procured a following from existing fellowships?

What can you see that is justifiable critisism their lives and indeed has this been heard?

Persecution; what kind of price do they pay for their ministery? If there is controversy, what are the reasons for it?

Miraculous testimonies, this is a subject on its own. Even so, look at what happend in Acts and compare with some of the claims that abound today that individuals have the same miraculous ability as the Apostles.

God Bless

Eddy.




In theory if the office is in place today, I think it is a comparitive mathmatical rarity- ie the number of Christians there are compared to the number of Apostles. Many are claiming it as you know.

Jim London said:

P.S.
Eddy, I saw, after posting my previous reply, that I mis-spelled your name! Apology!

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

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