[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good points. Let me add what little I know.

1. It seems to me that apostles like the "Twelve plus Paul" (for convenience say "13") cannot exist today because only these ones were with the Lord on earth, specifically chosen by Him, trained by Him, commissioned by Him, and became eyewitnesses of His death and resurrection.

2. Whether they were of the "13" or not, did not determine whether they would write scripture or not. The Spirit was not bound by the "13" as to who would write scripture. Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul were of the "13," but Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not of the "13." So one half of the N.T. writers were not of the "13."

Everyone that wrote Scripture however seemed to be closely associated with the apostles or Jesus. Luke with Paul; Mark with Peter; Jude, the brother of James, who was the brother of Jesus. There is no book "out of the blue." Jude is the only book that even comes close being that kind. Though we are not certain of the writer of Hebrews.

3. It seems to me that the Spirit ended the canon of the N.T. with John's Revelation, not because he was the last surviving of the "13," but because it was the eternal plan of God.

There may be only correlation, no causation, but still the pattern holds. Only the 13 or someone directly associated with them or Jesus wrote scripture.

4. Besides the "13," the Bible lists other apostles such as Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, and Silas. No one is saying that these ones match the "13" in stature or calling. Also, the Bible never indicates that these ones should not be considered as apostles.

I'm curious where these are noted as apostles. I considered them co-workers. But not necessarily apostles themselves.

5. The Bible never says that there are no more apostles, rather that "He gives gifts to man," and He continues to "give gifts to man." I believe that church history is filled with the accounts of these many "gifts."

6. Today the Head still gives "gifts to men ... some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers." What identifies them is their calling and their mission, not their ability to write scripture. Actually, the apostleship and the writing of scripture seem no where dependent on one another, as non-apostles wrote some scripture, and some of the "13" wrote nothing of scripture.

7. The only ones in the N.T. who could boldly claim their apostleship were the "13." None of the 1st century apostles like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, or Silas claimed their apostleship. It was recorded as such, yet they were not "titled" as such. I believe the same should be true today. When someone calls him- (or her-) self an "apostle," probably he (or she) is not, yet many others are indeed apostles, given as gifts to men by the Head.

Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?

I wouldn't totally object to calling someone an apostle today. My chief point was that the LRC borrowed the apostolic status of Paul and others and imbued it to WL. So I think every LRC member at one time wondered, "Is God giving WL further revelation?" I know staunch LSMers have no problem with that, and to me it's dangerous.

So as long as we are in agreement that today's apostles cannot further establish the faith (say by suggesting that the local ground in now an article, as some have), and that they cannot assert authority over churches, then we are close enough in agreement for government work.

The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?

Hopefully I've answer this. My assertion is that there are not anymore apostles of the 1st century rank who could establish the faith. There can be a kind of apostle now. But not with the authority given to those first ones. How can I say this? First the faith has been established already. Second, outside of signs and miracles identifying a 1st rank current apostle (2 Cor 12:12), designating a person with the kind of authority Paul had is just way too subjective given what would be at stake.