Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
So then, if these are the verses that demonstrate an Apostle's function was to confirm the faith, you have to ask do these verses only apply to the 1st century apostles, or are they still applicable today?
Today, do we need some to "teach new converts to obey everything the Lord has commanded"? I would say yes.
Today our version of the Apostle's teaching is the NT. However, there were only 3 of the 12 apostles who wrote the NT. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that the other 9 apostle's taught the same thing as the NT. Is it really that different if someone today teaches the NT? Once again, I would say that this verse is still applicable today.
In Acts 6 we see the apostles devoted themselves to the ministry of the word. Do we really think that this function is no longer applicable. I would say that today we still have those that devote themselves to the ministry of the word.
In Acts 13 it describes Barnabas and Paul being set aside for the work that Jesus called him to. Neither of these two was an eyewitness to the Lord's earthly ministry as one of the disciples. Therefore, the idea that Apostles are limited to those that were with the Lord from the beginning is certainly not applicable. Once again, based on this verse I would say we still have the Lord calling believer and setting believers aside to the work.
|
I agree in principle. Of course, I think I indicated that I do not consider these to be some kind of definitive verses, but ones that paint a picture. And for me, the picture they paint has a context and it includes looking at the whole of the OT and NT history, seeing that Jesus did not command everyone to go and disciple, etc.
But when you mention that there are people today who devote themselves to prayer and teaching the word, that is true of many people that I would not assert as being apostles at much of any level. Clearly teachers, but not apostles. The question of significance is whether there is some kind of special office/gift/position (or whatever) that is a kind of apostle that we should be keen to keep in front of us, or rather something much more general. If it is something much more general, then the earlier comments that I and others have made indicating that the real discernment is in the teachings and in the character of the person may still be all you need.
And if it is so general, then what is the significance of saying it is an apostle rather than simply a teacher? Are gaining anything from figuring out who is an apostle? Or are we simply doing mental gymnastics and the truth is that we are going to accept the good teachings and reject the bad either way and nothing will change except for our "reverence" toward any so-called "apostle." If that is all we accomplish, then I would probably rather not have a basis for thinking that certain ones may be apostles because that would simply be an invitation for a new sect and a personality cult.
But if there really are these important apostles today, then it must not mean much of anything because no one is really doing much to the culture and the church. And if it doesn't really mean much, then it must mean that God is being stymied in this area. And since God is not stymied, I tend to end out right back in the same place — apostles in this era, even if they exist, are not about being identified, but about their service. Let's leave it that way.