Apostles

[UntoHim]

ZNP,
Interesting correlation you make here.
If you are referring to the two witnesses in Revelation 11 then I think they could more accurately be designated as prophets (cf:"and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." REV 11:3. The term "apostles" is used in Revelation several times and if these two "witnesses" are going to be apostles I think the term would have been used here as well. Besides you are jumping ahead of us here all the way to the end times. We know for sure WHO WERE apostles (those appointed directly by the Lord Jesus), the task for us now may be to agree on who was/is an apostles in the subsequent time after the first century up to today.

Some people consider a number of the early "Church Fathers" to be apostles and I think there is an argument to be made for this view. In some cases they were only a generation behind the original scripture writing apostles (in some cases were mentored by them). It seems to me that, although their writings did not make it into the canon, they were relating truth to the Church with nearly the same authority and power as the original apostles. This, of course, is my personal opinion so you can take that for what it’s worth.

Then we can get into the real messy area of “apostolic succession”. If this was a forum for current and ex Catholics then we probably could spend day and night on this notion, but I think we may want to stir clear of this sticky wicket – we’ve got lot’s of other things to keep us busy!

One thing you mentioned really caught my attention:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What I do find compelling is to know how to discern the fraud from the genuine article. That to me gives a much greater purpose to this forum than merely discussing WL. Was WL a fraud? If so, how do we know, if not how do know that?

“discern the fraud from the genuine article”… Now THIS is more applicable to where we are today. The fact is, that just as we know the “genuine article” of our salvation – what is recorded for us in the Bible: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” - so too we can know the “genuine article” of an apostle. I won’t take the time here, and others have already laid out some of the biblical descriptions of an apostle, suffice it to say that we have not been left in the dark when it comes to this matter.

Finally, I’m going to repeat some of the things that were quotes from other posters (again)

Originally Posted by Ohio

There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.

Originally Posted by Igzy

If someone is an apostle then people going to get help from him/her, and no cheerleading them as an apostle is going to add anything to that, though it might detract.I'm talking about today's reality, not some ideal of the way it should be.

One of the last time “apostles” is mentioned in the NT is in Revelation 2:2 – “that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” I like how the NIV has translated this part. Most translations render it “who call themselves apostles” – a closer rendering of the Greek word here is “claim to be”. Of course the determinative thing is at the end - “and have found them false”. How did these believers in Ephesus find these people who claimed to be an apostle as false? My best guess would be that they were NOT teaching and preaching what was being taught and preached by the original apostles. These are referred to as “the apostles teachings” several times in Acts. So it seems to me one of the best ways to find out whether or not somebody is an apostle is to compare and contract what they preach and teach with what is actually taught in the New Testament.