Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[JJ]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, his claim to have been called to be an apostle to the Gentiles by the will of God is a cornerstone of his ministry. How do you test an apostle?

Some have said Paul gives a defense of his apostleship in 2 Cor 5:13-6:13, and if someone claims to be an apostle, their life should be compared to the things Paul says were true of his apostleship.

Compare this list Paul gives to your favorite apostle, and see how they fare.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JJ

Some have said Paul gives a defense of his apostleship in 2 Cor 5:13-6:13, and if someone claims to be an apostle, their life should be compared to the things Paul says were true of his apostleship.

Compare this list Paul gives to your favorite apostle, and see how they fare.

Excellent, here it is:

13For whether we are beside ourselves, it is unto God; or whether we are of sober mind, it is unto you. 14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again.

1. Apostles do not Iive unto themselves but unto Him who for their sakes died and rose again.

16Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more. 17Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new.

2. Apostles are a new creation, their old life according to the flesh has passed away.

18But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; 19to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

3. Apostles have a ministry of reconciliation. Everything that happened in their life is of God and a testimony of God reconciling the world to Himself.

20We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. 21Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.



1And working together with him we entreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain 2(for he saith,
At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee,
And in a day of salvation did I succor thee:
behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation):

4. Apostles are working together with God that the world might be saved.

3giving no occasion of stumbling in anything, that our ministration be not blamed; 4*but in everything commending ourselves, as ministers of God,

5. Apostles are very concerned that nothing they do would give an occasion of stumbling.

In all of these things they are commending themselves as ministers of God:

in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, 5in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings; 6in pureness, in knowledge, in longsuffering, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in love unfeigned, 7in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, 8by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; 9as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; 10as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

6. All of the biases, the middle walls of partition, the ways in which the believers wall themselves off from others, that is not of the Apostle’s fellowship but is something in their flesh.

11Our mouth is open unto you, O Corinthians, our heart is enlarged. 12Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own affections. 13Now for a recompense in like kind (I speak as unto my children), be ye also enlarged.

[Drake]

Igzy>”Note also in the verses above that Paul again implies that a qualification for apostleship is "seeing Jesus." And also note that the argument could be made that Paul is implying he is the last apostle.”

Igzy,

Your argument that Paul was the last apostle has no scriptural basis

First, there were many apostles that came after Paul became an apostle as Evangelical also identified.

Furthermore, Paul did not insinuate he was the last, he said he was the least.

Lastly, there is no scriptural basis for your assertion that the Bible replaced the apostles.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Lastly, there is no scriptural basis for your assertion that the Bible replaced the apostles.

There is also no scriptural basis that the New Testament is scripture.

Point: You are stretching your no scriptural basis argument to tenuous lengths.

Where is the scriptural basis for a subset group of the Church to tell its members that they should not leave that group?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is also no scriptural basis that the New Testament is scripture.

Point: You are stretching your no scriptural basis argument to tenuous lengths.

Where is the scriptural basis for a subset group of the Church to tell its members that they should not leave that group?

Igzy

Using that logic anybody could say anything and then cite some irrelevant points to justify an unscriptural viewpoint.

Of course you are entitled to hold those views but it should be clear that they are not according to scripture.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>”Note also in the verses above that Paul again implies that a qualification for apostleship is "seeing Jesus." And also note that the argument could be made that Paul is implying he is the last apostle.”

Igzy,

Your argument that Paul was the last apostle has no scriptural basis

First, there were many apostles that came after Paul became an apostle as Evangelical also identified.

Furthermore, Paul did not insinuate he was the last, he said he was the least.

I agree with you based on my understanding of apostle, but not based on Igzy's definition that the apostle's were the ones with the authority to write scripture. Paul said he was called to "complete the word". Peter said that Paul's writings were scripture. Therefore I would argue that there is a scriptural basis to say that the NT is complete.

Originally Posted by Drake

Lastly, there is no scriptural basis for your assertion that the Bible replaced the apostles.

Drake

I also agree with this. However, I would also agree with Igzy that there is a scriptural basis to say that there are no apostles henceforth with the authority to add to or to take away from the NT. That is essentially given to us in the conclusion of the NT in the book of Revelation.

[awareness]

Paul provides to the Corinthians the signs of an apostle :

2Co 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Paul provides to the Corinthians the signs of an apostle :

2Co 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Paul referred to that as foolishness.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Paul referred to that as foolishness.

Foolishness or not, Paul still complied, and proved his empowerment.

Lee didn't, most likely because he couldn't.

Either way, case closed as far as I'm concerned.

Jesus proved his empowerment with miracles. So did Peter and Paul. Lee didn't.

So let's break it up and go home. There is nothing you can say that's going to convince me that Lee or any other Johnny-Come-Lately with a fringe sycophantic following is an apostle either, short of miracles.

Personally I think it's foolishness that anyone would NOT ask Lee to prove his apostleship, given his track record.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Paul referred to that as foolishness.

How so? Can I burden you to explain?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with you based on my understanding of apostle, but not based on Igzy's definition that the apostle's were the ones with the authority to write scripture. Paul said he was called to "complete the word". Peter said that Paul's writings were scripture. Therefore I would argue that there is a scriptural basis to say that the NT is complete.
I also agree with this. However, I would also agree with Igzy that there is a scriptural basis to say that there are no apostles henceforth with the authority to add to or to take away from the NT. That is essentially given to us in the conclusion of the NT in the book of Revelation.

The NT is complete. Nevertheless, there were many apostles in the NT that did not write letters to be included in the NT, and they were apostles nonetheless.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

The NT is complete. Nevertheless, there were many apostles in the NT that did not write letters to be included in the NT, and they were apostles nonetheless.

Drake

Yes, I agree with that. However, if a "so called" apostle were to try and add something to the NT or take away something from the NT they would be exposed as a fraud. Therefore, although the NT has not "replaced" the apostles it does represent a higher authority than modern day apostles.

I like the picture that Paul paints, he laid the foundation, others are building on that foundation. They cannot lay another foundation, nor can they build on another foundation.

[Drake]

Igzy>^So let's break it up and go home. There is nothing you can say that's going to convince me that Lee or any other Johnny-Come-Lately with a fringe sycophantic following is an apostle either, short of miracles.”

I never expected to convince you Igzy. You should feel free to disengage anytime you like.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I agree with that. However, if a "so called" apostle were to try and add something to the NT or take away something from the NT they would be exposed as a fraud. Therefore, although the NT has not "replaced" the apostles it does represent a higher authority than modern day apostles.

I like the picture that Paul paints, he laid the foundation, others are building on that foundation. They cannot lay another foundation, nor can they build on another foundation.

Yep. I agree with that ZNP.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

The NT is complete. Nevertheless, there were many apostles in the NT that did not write letters to be included in the NT, and they were apostles nonetheless.

Actually bro Drake we don't hear from most of the apostles. Acts says John and Peter were illiterate, so maybe most of the apostles, not coming from the upper elite, couldn't write. We don't know. The scriptures we do have don't say.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Actually bro Drake we don't hear from most of the apostles. Acts says John and Peter were illiterate, so maybe most of the apostles, not coming from the upper elite, couldn't write. We don't know. The scriptures we do have don't say.

Bible never said they were illiterate. Go study the Greek words.