Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. We could debate authorship in another thread. But no need for this thread because it is clear that the NT is not made up exclusively of the 12+Paul. Also, that leaves 8 of the 12 who did not contribute to the NT canon. Therefore, the correlation between apostles and authors of the NT is not established. Like the giving of gifts to the Body so also is the NT scripture given to us, it is the Holy Spirit that compels.

Drake

How do we separate apostleship from the authority to write scripture?

How do we separate the accepted canon of the early church from the compelling of the Spirit?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do we separate apostleship from the authority to write scripture?

How do we separate the accepted canon of the early church from the compelling of the Spirit?

On the first, the argument was not about apostles writing the NT, but whether that was an exclusive function to the 12+Paul.

On the second, there is no debate among main stream evangelical or fundamental. ., only Catholics would include other writings. We can agree the NT is complete.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

On the first, the argument was not about apostles writing the NT, but whether that was an exclusive function to the 12+Paul.

On the second, there is no debate among main stream evangelical or fundamental. ., only Catholics would include other writings. We can agree the NT is complete.

Drake

The Lord himself confirmed that after Revelation there was to be no more direct revelation (Rev 22:18). This basically coincided with the end of the life of the last of the original Apostles, John.

I believe it is no coincidence that after that time the Church recognized no believer as an Apostle.

Seems pretty clear that if you were a first century Apostle, you could potentially write Scripture. No more new Scripture, no need of any new apostles. Do we need teachers, shepherds, church planters? Yes. But we don't need apostles in the sense of the original ones. Their mission has been completed and their special authority no longer exists. If would be unreasonable and irresponsible for the Church to think otherwise. There is a reason only fringe groups like the LCM have Apostles. Every one of them has abuse their "authority."

To quibble that there are still "sent ones" that raise up churches so therefore we can have someone like Lee who thought he was in charge of everything is crazy reasoning.

Lesson clear enough? Duh!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To quibble that there are still "sent ones" that raise up churches so therefore we can have someone like Lee who thought he was in charge of everything is crazy reasoning.

Lesson clear enough? Duh!

Lee did the word "apostle" a great disservice claiming that any member could be "sent," and thus an apostle. It was just typical of the semantic word games he loved to play.

He did this purposely to discredit those the church has always accepted as legitimate NT apostles.

I understand that "apostle" is a transliteration of the Greek "apostolos," but the real meaning of this word is closer to ambassador. The apostles were ambassadors of Christ.

In this regard, those who do not properly represent Christ and speak for Him as the Head of the body, should be "recalled" by the Sender, and disqualified.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do we separate apostleship from the authority to write scripture?

How do we separate the accepted canon of the early church from the compelling of the Spirit?

If God calls you and sends you, then you are an apostle.

If God calls you to write scripture and complete the word of God then that is your calling. You can be an apostle without being called to write scripture. That is my understanding.