Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
If the NT record was as simple as you make it "no apostles after the first century" then there would be no need for the church in Ephesus to examine them, simply "are they on the approved list, yes or no?" There would also be no need for Paul to give the extensive description of the proofs of his apostleship, none of which were that he was "on the accepted list". If you accept the function of apostles to go out and establish churches then obviously we have had many apostles since the first century.
|
The first century early church did not have a ready compilation of approved books forming the N.T. The churches regularly were forced to determine which apostles and which writings should be received as part of the "
teaching and fellowship of the apostles." (Acts 2.42) We see this battle over legitimacy throughout Paul's writings. The burden Paul faced was extraordinary since he both opposed "the way," and he was not including with the Twelve. John wrote that Ephesus was commended for trying the apostles, showing us how trying their churchlife had become.
Eventually the early church was forced to decide which writings were to be received into the canon, rejecting all others. This, in effect, closed the door to modern day so-called "apostles" who attempted to add their own writings to the canon. Think about how absurd it would be today for some gifted teacher or minister to elevate himself to the status of Apostle Paul, declare his own writings the "interpreted word," and begin to discredit certain "undesirable" books of scripture like the book of James or some of the Psalms. No one would receive such a preacher.