Apostles

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And this is where we tongue-in-cheek suggest that the thread is once again off-topic because there is absolutely no evidence that any of the BBs are apostles at any meaningful level, therefore their quarantine of TC would be meaningless.

Yes, it may technically be off topic but I think all of the seeming disagreement on this thread was the fact that the topic was not well defined.

I don't think the issue was the apostolic gift, but the apostolic authority. What everyone really seemed to take issue with was people calling themselves apostles and taking the authority of an apostle. Those of us who were looking at this as a gift continually said that the exercise of the gift was not dependent on the title. If you remember Igzy gave an analogy of Apostles equaling the uniform of a policeman and I argued it was more like the bullet the poleiceman shoots the killer with that saves my life. I was viewing Apostle as a gift, Igzy was viewing it as authority. The uniform is a sign of the authority. Also, by definition Apostles will exercise this gift in regions where they are not received. That is why it is often necessary for God to do signs and wonders to accompany the work of an apostle. This is also why it is no longer necessary in most cases for the signs and wonders to accompany the work of ministry.

So, I think the real focus of this thread has really been on the exercise of the apostolic authority. If you define it this way I would agree with Igzy's post#1 and #5. The Bible is our authority.

One excellent example of this is in the practice of excommunication. In that case it was the Apostle Paul who prompted and made a case for excommunication to the church and it was the church that agreed. So if we can adjust our focus a little I think the example with TC is on topic.

Also, although they may not have used this language (I'll double check) the BBs were clearly miffed that TC was not receiving WL as the MOTA.

[Cal]

I think this sums up the thread pretty well.

I think all of us are comfortable with the idea of apostolic gifting still being given. This satisfies those who have brought to our attention Eph 4:11. Ephesians 4:11 speaks of gifts, not offices. Note it says shepherds, not elders.

The question is, what is our ground for saying there is an office of apostle, and further, that it no longer exists?

The ground is, this is the judgment of the Body of Christ. The vast majority of serious students of the Bible agree that apostle of the rank and authority of the original 15 or 16 no longer exist because of their required being directly commissioned by the Lord Jesus. Those men had the office of apostle, and men of such type can no longer exist.

Now "can no longer exist" is not an absolute statement. It is situational and practical and borne of centuries of precedent. The Lord Jesus could directly commission someone today if he wanted to in the post-ascension manner he commissioned Paul. However, it is reasonable to assume that such an appointment would include the proof of the power of signs and wonders. It is unreasonable to assume the Lord would expect us just to take someone's word that He appeared to him directly and commissioned him with the authoritative office of apostle.

[Cal]

Note in the last nineteen centuries no one (but those now believed to have been mistaken) has claimed to have been directly commissioned by the Lord in the manner Paul was.

Further, no historical spiritual giants whom above all others might seem to us to deserve the title of apostle has ever claimed it or accepted it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Note in the last nineteen centuries no one (but those now believed to have been mistaken) has claimed to have been directly commissioned by the Lord in the manner Paul was.

Further, no historical spiritual giants whom above all others might seem to us to deserve the title of apostle has ever claimed it or accepted it.

This is the most important point made. And while it has been made over and over, it is now beginning to be accepted as likely true.

The thing that is still a little disconcerting to me is what ZNP refers to as "apostolic authority." While I would not diminish whatever "commission" anyone actually has from God, whether explicit or just the truth without being stated as such, it is the "exercise of authority" that is presumed to come out of "apostolic authority." That then presumes that whoever is an apostle is exercising authority. And I would suggest that in this day and age (and the age has been going on since they first apostles began to die away) that no one is "exercising authority" but rather teaching with clarity and wisdom. Those who recognize it, like recognizing Jesus' speaking with authority, will take note. But it will not be an authority thing, but the clear speaking of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Note in the last nineteen centuries no one (but those now believed to have been mistaken) has claimed to have been directly commissioned by the Lord in the manner Paul was.

Further, no historical spiritual giants whom above all others might seem to us to deserve the title of apostle has ever claimed it or accepted it.

What about the Popes?