Apostles

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy is also saying that because this teaching is causing trouble therefore it is better to say, as most Christians do, that the age of the Apostles is over and there are no more apostles.

I don't agree with that reasoning no more than the use of a knife to commit a crime is a valid reason to abolish knives..

But in a subsequent post you say "We should keep knives out of the hands of children."

I have in the past advocated keeping people away from Paul's writings until they have read the 4 Gospels a few times. Like a thousand or two.

Tongue in cheek, of course; but there is a lot of harm done by people who get all fired up over organizing the church and forget to "love your neighbor". They end up with a biblical container and no God. Just a lot of arguing christians with sharp knives.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy also argues that most of Christianity agrees with this view that there are no more apostles. Again, that to me is not a valid reason. I am much more interested in what the Bible says...

My point was that the Bible doesn't say. Paul said God gave some as apostles. Paul didn't indicate that this was to continue, unbroken, in perpetuity until the Lord's return. Nor did he indicate that at some point it would cease.

But history seems to have shown that it ceased, save for "the desposyni" and the RCC and the Mormons and the Living Stream Ministry crowd and others who all seem to share control issues.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Two examples of Apostles that I would propose would be Hudson Taylor and Martin Luther.

Taylor, like Moody and Graham, seems more like and evangelist.

Luther, along with Wesley, formed large religious organizations and so might be seen (in retrospect) as apostolic. Did they or their conemporaries ever claim such? Or are several centuries of history needed for determination?

Another point against 'apostles today'. We lack perspective. Anyone can claim, but the lens of history is not clear to us. So the wanna-be's trumpet.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

My point was that the Bible doesn't say. Paul said God gave some as apostles. Paul didn't indicate that this was to continue, unbroken, in perpetuity until the Lord's return. Nor did he indicate that at some point it would cease.

But history seems to have shown that it ceased, save for "the desposyni" and the RCC and the Mormons and the Living Stream Ministry crowd and others who all seem to share control issues.



Taylor, like Moody and Graham, seems more like and evangelist.

Luther, along with Wesley, formed large religious organizations and so might be seen (in retrospect) as apostolic. Did they or their conemporaries ever claim such? Or are several centuries of history needed for determination?

Another point against 'apostles today'. We lack perspective. Anyone can claim, but the lens of history is not clear to us. So the wanna-be's trumpet.

I knew a brother who, to those that knew him, would unequivocally be considered a gifted evangelist. I think there could be no dispute that he was a gift given to the body. That said, he never was famous, never held large tent rallies, never really did much more than preach the gospel every day. Likewise, although I don't know their names, I am aware that in history as well as today, there are brothers that tirelessly raise up christian congregations. Now their might not be any comparison with an Apostle Paul as far as Biblical revelation and insight into the word. They may not be famous, they may not really appear to be much of anything. But no doubt, those that know them would realize they are gifts to the body. Not exactly evangelists, not exactly shepherds and teachers. So, what are they? Certainly not one of "the" apostles. But I think it is fair to describe their gift as "apostolic". Just like Jesus told Peter "If I want him to abide until I return, what is that to you". The Lord has different callings for different saints, what is that to us.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am aware that in history as well as today, there are brothers that tirelessly raise up christian congregations. ..... Not exactly evangelists, not exactly shepherds and teachers. So, what are they? Certainly not one of "the" apostles. But I think it is fair to describe their gift as "apostolic". Just like Jesus told Peter "If I want him to abide until I return, what is that to you". The Lord has different callings for different saints, what is that to us.

Exactly. Unless you think your particular gift is to wrangle with others over titles, who cares, really? Just function as best you can in your circumstances.

Jesus said, "If you get invited to a feast, take the least seat. Then, if the Master of the feast calls you higher, you can go." Lee and his spiritual progeny seem to have taught this, but I don't think they practiced it. It was too tempting to be a "responsible brother" or a "blended brother" or a "laboring one" or a "co-worker" under, ahem, "the apostle". Nah, it was just too juicy to pass up. Besides, without titles, everything would collapse into chaos. Right?

Like the Israelites, baying to God, "We wanna king!! We wanna king!! Why can't we be like the nations and have a king!?!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

We will see in "that day" who has titles and who has functions. That is why I am not really interested in titles. Only the ones that pass the Bema are real.

Originally Posted by aron

Exactly. Unless you think your particular gift is to wrangle with others over titles, who cares, really? Just function as best you can in your circumstances.

You are making many good points, but the Bible does address the matter of titles in many occasions. Paul said he was an apostle on many occasions, and then he appointed elders in all the churches.

aron, if your points were valid, not to say I don't like them, then why didn't the Bible end just with the gospels? We would be left with "love God and love your neighbor," and we would be delivered from this age-old discussion about who is an apostle. Wouldn't it be so good if we were all just brothers and sisters, just like in the gospels?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wouldn't it be so good if we were all just brothers and sisters, just like in the gospels?

Yeah, thanks Paul. When Watchman Nee discovered that Christians lie, that goes all the way back to the earliest writer of NT scriptures.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

aron, if your points were valid ... then why didn't the Bible end just with the gospels? We would be left with "love God and love your neighbor," and we would be delivered from this age-old discussion about who is an apostle.

The Bible is what it is, epistles and all. Just read the 4 gospels 15 times for every epistle (especially if you are a "NEW ONE")

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The Bible is what it is, epistles and all.

Also worth mentioning is that, though the Bible continues past the gospels and into the Acts and epistles of Paul et al, it keeps going further. After the pastoral epistles is Revelation: opening with "writings to the seven churches" (Rev 1:4,11) which are, by and large, neither salutatory nor sanguine.

(And the LSM footnote that all the local churches need to be "absolutely identical", with the problems in Rev 2 & 3 arising from "differences" is a joke. If God wanted absolute identicality He would have built an assembly line of robots. Instead, God planted a farm [1 Cor 3]).

Jesus didn't use elders or apostles in Revelation 1. His right hand contained seven stars, seven messengers. Each star was capable of delivering Jesus' words to the assembly of believers in that city/region (Rev 1:20).

So yes, Paul does talk about the church having apostles. But don't fall into the trap of finding a verse which aligns with your comfort zone and settling down there. Keep going. Keep pressing on, into the land of crumbling concepts. The Shepherd and the Comforter will meet you there, and will guide you home to the Father.