Apostles

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Predictable ploy. Can't answer questions so you throw some back at me.

Wish I had more time to talk. Later ...

Ohio I'm not "ploying" with you, okay? I'm just having a discussion. Show me a little more respect, okay, and please stop being rude. I thought you and I were friends.

What questions do you want me to answer? The reasons I skipped some was because I felt they missed the point I was making. I tried to clarify that point, but let me spell it out simply below, and then fire your questions if you still have them.

1. Apostles of the first century type cannot exist today because those established the faith and faith is already established.

2. Apostles can exist today (missionaries, church planters, major visionaries), but not of the rank of the first century.

3. We need to be careful when we designate someone an "apostle" and not by title association endow them with the same authority of the first century apostles, that is, give them some grey area to further establish the faith (read "redefine) and/or command too much authority in controlling churches, as this is the error of Lee and the LRC.

Does that make sense? Thoughts? Where am I going wrong?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio I'm not "ploying" with you, okay? I'm just having a discussion. Show me a little more respect, okay, and please stop being rude. I thought you and I were friends.

Igzy, I'm surprised you said that. After thinking back over some of your past "debates" with SI, SC, and others (recently Ryan?), including myself at times, I eventually came to the conclusion that sometimes you place "winning" over friendships.

Hopefully I am wrong. Perhaps it is not your goal, but it does seem that way at times to me.

But, back to our discussion about "apostles." Perhaps the difficulty we have faced is that you are viewing the matter of apostles in context of WL and the LC, while I am pursuing questions I have had based on the Bible and church history, independent of LRC teaching and practice. You are justified, of course, since this a WL/LC forum!

Whether you have considered it or not, as our discussion progressed, I knew the stage would be reached when you would then defend your position by launching a barrage of questions back at me. That's why I posted, "predictable ploy." I never intended to be rude. Brief and to the point, perhaps, but not rude. I tried to respond to you in kind. When you said "Please tell me," it escalated a casual discussion into something more serious.

The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?

Because the Bible does not say that there are more apostles.

The Bible says there were apostles (1 Cor 12, Eph 4). But it doesn't say there were to be more (i.e. continuing unabated after Paul et al) apostles.

You seem to think that it states (or infers) that somewhere. I don't recall seeing that. Nor does christian history (the record of interpretation & application) seem to bear out the "more apostles" view, except with what might be charitably called "fringe" groups.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy, I'm surprised you said that. After thinking back over some of your past "debates" with SI, SC, and others (recently Ryan?), including myself at times, I eventually came to the conclusion that sometimes you place "winning" over friendships.

Hopefully I am wrong. Perhaps it is not your goal, but it does seem that way at times to me.

Didn't you do the same when you asked me if I still beat my sister? Anyway, I admit I get carried away at times. But it's not about winning with me. It's about getting to the truth. Friendships and people should come first though, and sometimes the line is gray. I'm trying to do better though, I really am. Not perfect and still learning.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Didn't you do the same when you asked me if I still beat my sister? Anyway, I admit I get carried away at times. But it's not about winning with me. It's about getting to the truth. Friendships and people should come first though, and sometimes the line is gray. I'm trying to do better though, I really am. Not perfect and still learning.

What? I didn't know you had a sister.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What? I didn't know you had a sister.

It was on the old forum when you got mad at me about SI. I told you that I sometimes got in philosophical arguments with my sister. Later you asked me if I still beat her, meaning beat her up verbally.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Didn't you do the same when you asked me if I still beat my sister? Anyway, I admit I get carried away at times. But it's not about winning with me. It's about getting to the truth. Friendships and people should come first though, and sometimes the line is gray. I'm trying to do better though, I really am. Not perfect and still learning.

I do remember some discussion about your sister. I wasn't "doing the same," rather pointing out what you seemed to do, without realizing it. Sorry if I crossed the line.

Of course, none of us is perfect. I hope I am not implying that I am. In fact, I may have chased off as many posters as you have. The latest one may be KisstheSon.

[manna-man]

Your funny!

KTS has followed his personal convictions.

No one has run him off, and if I know KTS, he will be lurking.

Don't worry, be happy.

Peace which comes by the light of the world,

Don Jr.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

1. Apostles of the first century type cannot exist today because those established the faith and faith is already established.

2. Apostles can exist today (missionaries, church planters, major visionaries), but not of the rank of the first century.

3. We need to be careful when we designate someone an "apostle" and not by title association endow them with the same authority of the first century apostles, that is, give them some grey area to further establish the faith (read "redefine) and/or command too much authority in controlling churches, as this is the error of Lee and the LRC.

Does that make sense? Thoughts? Where am I going wrong?

Good points. Let me add what little I know.

1. It seems to me that apostles like the "Twelve plus Paul" (for convenience say "13") cannot exist today because only these ones were with the Lord on earth, specifically chosen by Him, trained by Him, commissioned by Him, and became eyewitnesses of His death and resurrection.

2. Whether they were of the "13" or not, did not determine whether they would write scripture or not. The Spirit was not bound by the "13" as to who would write scripture. Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul were of the "13," but Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not of the "13." So one half of the N.T. writers were not of the "13."

3. It seems to me that the Spirit ended the canon of the N.T. with John's Revelation, not because he was the last surviving of the "13," but because it was the eternal plan of God.

4. Besides the "13," the Bible lists other apostles such as Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, and Silas. No one is saying that these ones match the "13" in stature or calling. Also, the Bible never indicates that these ones should not be considered as apostles.

5. The Bible never says that there are no more apostles, rather that "He gives gifts to man," and He continues to "give gifts to man." I believe that church history is filled with the accounts of these many "gifts."

6. Today the Head still gives "gifts to men ... some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers." What identifies them is their calling and their mission, not their ability to write scripture. Actually, the apostleship and the writing of scripture seem no where dependent on one another, as non-apostles wrote some scripture, and some of the "13" wrote nothing of scripture.

7. The only ones in the N.T. who could boldly claim their apostleship were the "13." None of the 1st century apostles like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, or Silas claimed their apostleship. It was recorded as such, yet they were not "titled" as such. I believe the same should be true today. When someone calls him- (or her-) self an "apostle," probably he (or she) is not, yet many others are indeed apostles, given as gifts to men by the Head.

Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?

13 is a heresy...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good points. Let me add what little I know.

1. It seems to me that apostles like the "Twelve plus Paul" (for convenience say "13") cannot exist today because only these ones were with the Lord on earth, specifically chosen by Him, trained by Him, commissioned by Him, and became eyewitnesses of His death and resurrection.

2. Whether they were of the "13" or not, did not determine whether they would write scripture or not. The Spirit was not bound by the "13" as to who would write scripture. Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul were of the "13," but Mark, Luke, James, and Jude were not of the "13." So one half of the N.T. writers were not of the "13."

Everyone that wrote Scripture however seemed to be closely associated with the apostles or Jesus. Luke with Paul; Mark with Peter; Jude, the brother of James, who was the brother of Jesus. There is no book "out of the blue." Jude is the only book that even comes close being that kind. Though we are not certain of the writer of Hebrews.

3. It seems to me that the Spirit ended the canon of the N.T. with John's Revelation, not because he was the last surviving of the "13," but because it was the eternal plan of God.

There may be only correlation, no causation, but still the pattern holds. Only the 13 or someone directly associated with them or Jesus wrote scripture.

4. Besides the "13," the Bible lists other apostles such as Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, and Silas. No one is saying that these ones match the "13" in stature or calling. Also, the Bible never indicates that these ones should not be considered as apostles.

I'm curious where these are noted as apostles. I considered them co-workers. But not necessarily apostles themselves.

5. The Bible never says that there are no more apostles, rather that "He gives gifts to man," and He continues to "give gifts to man." I believe that church history is filled with the accounts of these many "gifts."

6. Today the Head still gives "gifts to men ... some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers." What identifies them is their calling and their mission, not their ability to write scripture. Actually, the apostleship and the writing of scripture seem no where dependent on one another, as non-apostles wrote some scripture, and some of the "13" wrote nothing of scripture.

7. The only ones in the N.T. who could boldly claim their apostleship were the "13." None of the 1st century apostles like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, or Silas claimed their apostleship. It was recorded as such, yet they were not "titled" as such. I believe the same should be true today. When someone calls him- (or her-) self an "apostle," probably he (or she) is not, yet many others are indeed apostles, given as gifts to men by the Head.

Thoughts? Objections? Improvements? Complaints? Heresies?

I wouldn't totally object to calling someone an apostle today. My chief point was that the LRC borrowed the apostolic status of Paul and others and imbued it to WL. So I think every LRC member at one time wondered, "Is God giving WL further revelation?" I know staunch LSMers have no problem with that, and to me it's dangerous.

So as long as we are in agreement that today's apostles cannot further establish the faith (say by suggesting that the local ground in now an article, as some have), and that they cannot assert authority over churches, then we are close enough in agreement for government work.

The first unanswered question concerns how can you say that there are no more apostles?

Hopefully I've answer this. My assertion is that there are not anymore apostles of the 1st century rank who could establish the faith. There can be a kind of apostle now. But not with the authority given to those first ones. How can I say this? First the faith has been established already. Second, outside of signs and miracles identifying a 1st rank current apostle (2 Cor 12:12), designating a person with the kind of authority Paul had is just way too subjective given what would be at stake.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm curious where these are noted as apostles. I considered them co-workers. But not necessarily apostles themselves.

Here are some relatively unknown folks who were considered apostles. Phil 2.25 Epaphroditus was Philippi's apostle. Acts 14.14 Barnabas was an apostle. I Cor 15.7 implies a large number of apostles, separate from Paul and the Twelve. Rom 16.7 says Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles. Junia is especially interesting because the name is feminine. Other verses list other apostles.

I wouldn't totally object to calling someone an apostle today. My chief point was that the LRC borrowed the apostolic status of Paul and others and imbued it to WL. So I think every LRC member at one time wondered, "Is God giving WL further revelation?" I know staunch LSMers have no problem with that, and to me it's dangerous.

I agree with this. Rome endues popes with the status of Peter. The Recovery endues WN and WL with the "better" status of Paul. Neither systems have been blessed by this error, and many saints have suffered loss, being robbed of Christ, the Head.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here are some relatively unknown folks who were considered apostles. Phil 2.25 Epaphroditus was Philippi's apostle. Acts 14.14 Barnabas was an apostle. I Cor 15.7 implies a large number of apostles, separate from Paul and the Twelve. Rom 16.7 says Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles. Junia is especially interesting because the name is feminine. Other verses list other apostles.

Good stuff. But couldn't 1 Cor 15:7 be taken to imply that a true apostle has seen Jesus? Especially when combined with 1 Cor 9:1?

"He also appeared to James, and then to all of the apostles." [emphasis mine] 1 Cor 15:7

"I am free. I am an apostle. I have seen the Lord Jesus and have led you to have faith in him." 1 Cor 9:1

[OBW]

I understand the general meaning of the word that we translate "apostle." And there is some evidence that there were many who laid claim to being an apostle because there was reference made to those who call themselves apostles, yet no clear definition of what they considered the criteria unless we assume that the "have seen Jesus" was an implied requirement.

But the most important thing that I see is that there were some who were designated as apostles and that is not something that can be clearly repeated. This is not to say that there is no such thing as an apostle in a general sense. But to declare that you are an apostle seems a little like claiming to be an oracle. Not entirely so, because while God spoke clearly to say there are no oracles other than those he has declared to be so, he has made no clear statement on apostles. But he did designate some, and then it would appear that some others designated themselves.

I'm more prone to accept that in this day and age, there is not something called an apostle that stands in the way that Peter, John, James, Paul, and a few others did in that day. For that reason, the alternate term of "missionary" is highly preferred because to me it places bounds on the calling and commission of the "sent one." To say "apostle" seems to presume broad power and authority that there is no evidence actually exists. And it seems to be used almost exclusively in the context of leaders of small groups who have an exalted and authoritarian leader — like Lee. And used by the person claiming the authority (even if a back-door claim — like Lee).

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm more prone to accept that in this day and age, there is not something called an apostle that stands in the way that Peter, John, James, Paul, and a few others did in that day. ...To say "apostle" seems to presume broad power and authority that there is no evidence actually exists. And it seems to be used almost exclusively in the context of leaders of small groups who have an exalted and authoritarian leader — like Lee. And used by the person claiming the authority (even if a back-door claim — like Lee).

There seems to have been a general consensus among the believers that Peter, James, John, Paul, and a few others were indeed apostles. But that consensus seems to have faded save in the cases in which OBW noted, with leaders and groups having control issues.

Ohio's statement that Paul's "God gave some to be apostles..." indicates an enduring trend, versus a short-term event, does not seem self-evident in the reading, nor does it seem very compelling in the historical record.

And speaking of the historical record, I have what I call the "300 Year Rule"; I think it takes time for the objective lens of history to clarify and judge the works of the christian personality. I am able to make up my mind easier with Erasmus and Luther and Calvin, and with Wesley and Edwards, and to decide what merits value or not, than I can with D.L. Moody or Spurgeon or the 20th century figures.

So we might make a case, if it really mattered to us, that some historical figures approached the impact on the church that Paul or John had, but it becomes harder when we asses a Rick Warren or a Billy Graham. With contemporaries, ironically, we see so little and are more clouded with subjective criteria, and it makes it difficult to gain the same perspective and rough consensus we have with the early apostles.

So to me it becomes like the trinity or the free will/God's sovereignty debate or the rapture/tribulation/millenium discussions; subjects that while not entirely irrelevant or unbiblical are (to me) of limited profit, difficult to gain consensus on, and open to endless varieties of debate and interminable wrangling.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Good stuff. But couldn't 1 Cor 15:7 be taken to imply that a true apostle has seen Jesus? Especially when combined with 1 Cor 9:1?

"He also appeared to James, and then to all of the apostles." [emphasis mine] 1 Cor 15:7

"I am free. I am an apostle. I have seen the Lord Jesus and have led you to have faith in him." 1 Cor 9:1

Many notable Christians have made this claim, and for good reason I suppose, since it is convenient and "clean" to claim there are no more apostles. Personally, I wish this were the case, because by noting ones like Epaphroditus are apostles, a whole host of complications are introduced. I'm sure the ones working with Paul, who were considered to be apostles in his epistles, were legit. Others, however, looked favorably upon the perks of the apostleship, and claimed it for their themselves. These ones caused great damage to the gospel, and Paul referred to them as "super-apostles."

I Cor 15.5-8 indicates an order of witnessing the resurrected Christ (sorry to the many dear and seeking sisters who were left out of this list) --

1. Cephas (Peter)
2. The Twelve
3. 500 brothers
4. James, brother of the Lord, leader in Jerusalem, author of epistle
5. All the apostles
6. Saul called Paul

Some observations here --

1. Paul gets a "dig" into James, by noting how many saw the resurrected Jesus before James, His own brother, indicating how slow James was to finally believe
2. Paul differentiates the "Twelve" from "all the apostles." Perhaps he is considering the 120 at Pentecost all to be "apostles." Perhaps these were later considered an expanded grouping beyond the original Twelve. Acts 1.4-8 supports this view, calling them "witnesses."
3. Note that Judas was replaced. Apparently there were many "alternate jurors" who had witnessed all the "testimony" over the last 3 plus years with Jesus. Matthias was selected (Acts 1:21-26) as one of many brothers who were with them "all the time from the baptism of John until the ascension."
4. Hence, to the earliest disciples with Peter leading at the time, having "Twelve" designated as "witnesses of the resurrection," was extremely important. They felt it was better to pick a replacement themselves, than to be limited to "the eleven" remaining ones, hand-picked by the Lord.
5. The "secondary" apostles mentioned in the epistles, like Epaphroditus and Timothy, who were saved in the Gentile world, long after Jesus departed from the earth, could not be included among those listed above who had seen the Lord Jesus.
6. Concerning I Cor 9.1, Paul definitely includes himself with the other apostles, at least with the greater number of perhaps 120 apostles. The book of Galatians is Paul's assertion that he should be ranked with or ahead of even the "Twelve." This assertion by Paul identifies the ongoing "battle" which we witness in the Acts and Epistles.
7. Actually it was Paul who really "defined" the truth of the N.T. Without his calling and commission by the Head, even the "Twelve" may have deteriorated in time into a modified Jewish-only gospel. As the truth-standard-bearer, Paul uplifted the truth taught by the "Twelve," restoring and preserving it to its original glory, as they had received from the Lord.

[ZNPaaneah]

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

1. The gift of apostles is listed with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Unless you want to say that there haven’t been anymore of any of these gifts since the days of the Apostle John I see nothing from these verses to suggest that the gift of Apostles is any different from the other gifts.

2. The gifts listed in verse 11 are given for the perfecting of the saints. Unless you want to say that the saints were perfected back in the time of the Apostle John why would you think the Body is no longer in need of Apostles?

3. The gifts are for the work of the ministry. Did this work cease at the time of the Apostle John? If not, why would the apostles no longer be given?

4. The gifts are for the building up of the Body of Christ. Did the building up of the Body of Christ cease after the Apostle John? If not, why would the apostles no longer be given since that was the purpose for which they were given.

5. Now it seems to me that verse 13 kind of explains where exactly we are headed: until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith (Paul may have arrived at this already, but the goal was for all of us to arrive, I think we are all in agreement that we certainly have not all arrived at this oneness yet).

When I read this verse the gift of apostles is put right next to the gift of pastors. No one is arguing that we no longer have pastors. I don’t see the slightest indication from these verses that the gift of the Apostles only refers to those that saw Jesus or who wrote scripture.

I have read the many lengthy posts. I understand that Christian history is full of false apostles, super apostles, false Christs, and false prophets. To me you can’t have a forgery without the real thing. So whereas the tendency seems to be to shy away from the term due to its misuse, I think the more appropriate response is to fight the pressure. (In football, when you play defense you are taught to fight the pressure, if they are pushing you one way you want to go the other.) This is how I understand Revelation 2:2 “I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:”. Why would you need to test and examine those that say they are apostles in order to find them liars if the NT taught that the Apostles only referred to those that wrote scripture or that saw Jesus? It seems to me that this wasn’t simply a matter of filling out a checklist, but was a difficult and arduous process and the Lord is commending the saints for doing this.

Also, we know at the end of the age the Lord will send the 2 witnesses. Likewise we know that there will be an antichrist and a false prophet. It seems to me that discerning between a forgery and the real thing will be a very valuable skill that all Christians need to know. So I don’t buy the idea that this is a useless discussion or that it is merely a matter of titles or semantics.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The gift of apostles is listed with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Unless you want to say that there haven’t been anymore of any of these gifts since the days of the Apostle John I see nothing from these verses to suggest that the gift of Apostles is any different from the other gifts..

I see human logic at work here... You say that if there are not apostles today then there cannot be any gifts given. Why? Why can't there be some gifts given today? Doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition until the Lord returns.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The gifts listed in verse 11 are given for the perfecting of the saints. Unless you want to say that the saints were perfected back in the time of the Apostle John why would you think the Body is no longer in need of Apostles?

Again you are imposing circumstances upon ours. If something happened once, it must be a necessity for all time. I don't see it.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don’t see the slightest indication from these verses that the gift of the Apostles only refers to those that saw Jesus or who wrote scripture.

And I don't see the slightest indication from these verses that apostles are required in perpetuity for the body to function.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why would you need to test and examine those that say they are apostles in order to find them liars if the NT taught that the Apostles only referred to those that wrote scripture or that saw Jesus? It seems to me that this wasn’t simply a matter of filling out a checklist, but was a difficult and arduous process and the Lord is commending the saints for doing this..

When John wrote about testing those who say they are apostles, there were multiple claims among the fellowship (not only Paul and John and Peter, but ambitious Johnny-come-latelys) for this title. Just as Paul and John and Peter have departed, so have those claims receded to the "fringes" of christianity. Just because there may be some today claiming to be apostles doesn't mean that there must therefore be true apostles among us.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, we know at the end of the age the Lord will send the 2 witnesses. Likewise we know that there will be an antichrist and a false prophet. It seems to me that discerning between a forgery and the real thing will be a very valuable skill that all Christians need to know

Unless I see some compelling reason to find apostles among us I am wary;
from my contacts in christianity I think many are similarly wary.

Go back to Igzy's question. Just suppose the verse "God gave some to be apostles" describes not just Paul's time but is actually a requirement for all times. Suppose "You tried some who claimed to be apostles and were not" in the first century means that therefore we in the 21st century need to try and approve some who claim to be apostles and in fact are.

How do we go about such a task? I don't see anybody making much headway except the fringe sects with their exalted leaders. And I put the RCC there, too. I don't see the Pope as some "bishop-approved" apostle.

On the other hand, have you ever heard of the "Throne of James"? Have you ever heard of the "desposyni"? The speed in which the believers elevate some beyond their allotted portion is rather disconcerting, and echoes (for me) the original fall, of the original "Light bearer" (Lucifer) who presumed a place not his.

See also Jude 1:6: "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."

I think it is a fearful thing to presume a place not expressly given by God. How are we collectively to determine whether or not Joyce Myers or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or pastor Chuck Smith or whomever is actually an apostle?

To me, the parable in Luke 14 seems equally Biblical, and timely, as Ephesians 4:11. When the Master gives a feast, take the last seat. Don't sit somewhere you don't belong. If anyone out there wants to sit in the seat marked "Apostle", go for it. I see no compelling reason we the christian polity should prop any of them up.

[Cal]

Unless apostles can operate effectively as apostles without being recognized as apostles it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. On the other hand, if they can operate effectively as apostles without apostolic recognition then the need to recognize them is moot. However, as aron said the Lord said we should discern false apostles, which means we should discern true ones as well.

This discussion is really academc if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion. I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do? How do we know a true apostle? Z said by their fruit. What fruit, exactly?

Here are few names.

Andrew Murray
Watchman Nee
Billy Graham
A.W. Tozer
T.A. Sparks
C.S. Lewis
Witness Lee
Titus Chu
Joel Osteen
Beth Moore
Joyce Meyer
John Stott
J.I. Packer
Rick Warren

Do you consider any of these apostles? Why or why not?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Unless apostles can operate effectively in today it does little good to have them if the church cannot discern them. This discussion is really esoteric if discerning apostles entails little more than taste and opinion.

I've asked several times about how to discern apostles, but there has been little input. What do apostles do?

Apostles are sent by the Lord with a specific commission.

Paul was an apostle, but he was also an evangelist, shepherd, and teacher.

Peter was an apostle, but was also an elder.

An apostle cannot just be a writer, a speaker, a gifted teacher, or a productive mega-church builder. He must be a field worker, hence the word "sent."

I think it is very safe to say that ones like Hudson Taylor, Bakht Singh, and Watchman Nee are apostles. These ones were pioneering workers, who "turned their world up side down."

No matter who is proposed as an apostle, there will always be detractors. The same was true of Paul. Thousands in the early church refused to recognize him.

Unfortunately, the topic of apostleship today has been reduced to esoterics, since few genuine apostles will dare to touch the subject. Hence, we are left with only a handful of frauds today who claim this title, ones like Apostles Bill and Jane Hamon. Outside of certain Pentecostal circles, however, no one would recognize them, or believe in their claims. The same things could be said of prophets.

If I had to define an apostle, I would look for a life-long, life-changing, pioneering work, marked by suffering and hardship, and blessed by the Head with both signs and much fruit. There would be clear evidence that the Lord had actually sent and commissioned that apostle.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

The gift of apostles is listed with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Unless you want to say that there haven’t been anymore of any of these gifts since the days of the Apostle John I see nothing from these verses to suggest that the gift of Apostles is any different from the other gifts.

And I see nothing from these verses that requires all of these gifts in perpetuity. You have an "all or nothing" requirement here which I don't see.

And if your requirement is "Until we all come to the fulness etc" then our required apostle can be the ones who wrote the Bible.