Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with Drake that depending on miracles is a very dangerous and slippery slope. You could easily end up being the Pharisees assuring the rest of us that "nothing good can come out of Nazareth". Just because the miracles are a sign doesn't mean they are a flashing neon sign that everyone will see.

Please tell me why it is so important to recognize a person as an apostle with scant proof? What is the upside? What is the downside? Look at the damage done in Church history by goofballs claiming apostleship.

Sorry, but I think expecting the latter days to conform to the pattern of the first century is an example of what Ralph Waldo Emerson called the "foolish consistency" which is the "hobgoblin of small minds."

There is a reason, and a good one, that the Church-at-large has not recognized one single apostle for over 1800 years.

Sure, if you want to believe there are still apostles, go for it. But that is a fringe belief--and rightfully and thankfully so, IMHO.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Please tell me why it is so important to recognize a person as an apostle with scant proof? What is the upside? What is the downside? Look at the damage done in Church history by goofballs claiming apostleship.

It isn't important. However, I see disproving the claim of apostleship as the flip side of the same coin. If it is extremely difficult to confirm an apostle then it is equally difficult to disprove it. Hence you are dragged into the mud of an argument that is not central.

The central argument that I see from the NT is this:

1. Do they keep the fellowship of the apostles?

second --

There is a very strong prohibition in the NT "above all" other prohibitions, to not pledge an oath of loyalty to any man.

Therefore warning against elevating a man's writing to the level of scripture, John's warning to not add or subtract from scripture, and James warning above all to not pledge an oath of loyalty to anyone. These are the things I think are important.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, but I think expecting the latter days to conform to the pattern of the first century is an example of what Ralph Waldo Emerson called the "foolish consistency" which is the "hobgoblin of small minds."

Yes, I agree with you. That is why I have pointed out that Paul's calling was to "complete the word of God" and that Peter claimed that Paul's writing was "scripture". No modern day apostle can claim that their writing is scripture. Therefore they must all be aligned to the NT.

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is a reason, and a good one, that the Church-at-large has not recognized one single apostle for over 1800 years.

Sure, if you want to believe there are still apostles, go for it. But that is a fringe belief--and rightfully and thankfully so, IMHO.

If you define an apostle as "a sent one" from the Lord then there are obviously still apostles to this day. If you define apostle as one of the gifts that are perfecting the saints and that saints may not be "gifted" as evangelists, prophets, or apostles they can still function in that way, then obviously there are still apostles today.

If the NT record was as simple as you make it "no apostles after the first century" then there would be no need for the church in Ephesus to examine them, simply "are they on the approved list, yes or no?" There would also be no need for Paul to give the extensive description of the proofs of his apostleship, none of which were that he was "on the accepted list". If you accept the function of apostles to go out and establish churches then obviously we have had many apostles since the first century.

Therefore I do not find scriptural support for your position, other than to say that no one can claim to write scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If the NT record was as simple as you make it "no apostles after the first century" then there would be no need for the church in Ephesus to examine them, simply "are they on the approved list, yes or no?" There would also be no need for Paul to give the extensive description of the proofs of his apostleship, none of which were that he was "on the accepted list". If you accept the function of apostles to go out and establish churches then obviously we have had many apostles since the first century.

The first century early church did not have a ready compilation of approved books forming the N.T. The churches regularly were forced to determine which apostles and which writings should be received as part of the "teaching and fellowship of the apostles." (Acts 2.42) We see this battle over legitimacy throughout Paul's writings. The burden Paul faced was extraordinary since he both opposed "the way," and he was not including with the Twelve. John wrote that Ephesus was commended for trying the apostles, showing us how trying their churchlife had become.

Eventually the early church was forced to decide which writings were to be received into the canon, rejecting all others. This, in effect, closed the door to modern day so-called "apostles" who attempted to add their own writings to the canon. Think about how absurd it would be today for some gifted teacher or minister to elevate himself to the status of Apostle Paul, declare his own writings the "interpreted word," and begin to discredit certain "undesirable" books of scripture like the book of James or some of the Psalms. No one would receive such a preacher.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The first century early church did not have a ready compilation of approved books forming the N.T. The churches regularly were forced to determine which apostles and which writings should be received as part of the "teaching and fellowship of the apostles." (Acts 2.42) We see this battle over legitimacy throughout Paul's writings. The burden Paul faced was extraordinary since he both opposed "the way," and he was not including with the Twelve. John wrote that Ephesus was commended for trying the apostles, showing us how trying their churchlife had become.

Sorry for being so brief as to be unclear. In this discussion it began with Igzy asking a question of Drake to explain how, like the church in Ephesus, we can examine and determine if an apostle is true or false. That question would have been unnecessary if only first century apostles were apostles.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Eventually the early church was forced to decide which writings were to be received into the canon, rejecting all others. This, in effect, closed the door to modern day so-called "apostles" who attempted to add their own writings to the canon. Think about how absurd it would be today for some gifted teacher or minister to elevate himself to the status of Apostle Paul, declare his own writings the "interpreted word," and begin to discredit certain "undesirable" books of scripture like the book of James or some of the Psalms. No one would receive such a preacher.

No one? Really? You have a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. Perhaps my experience in the LRC has made me less trusting.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sorry for being so brief as to be unclear. In this discussion it began with Igzy asking a question of Drake to explain how, like the church in Ephesus, we can examine and determine if an apostle is true or false. That question would have been unnecessary if only first century apostles were apostles.

I understand. It's too bad we don't know what criteria Ephesus used.

We have discussed signs and wonders, seeing Jesus, etc. which have not arrived at a consensus. Looking at Ephesus, I saw a distinction between "foundational" apostles (2.20) and "building" apostles (4.11-12)

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No one? Really? You have a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. Perhaps my experience in the LRC has made me less trusting.

I was being a little sardonic.

[Drake]

Igzy>"First, the fact that he gave apostles for the building of the Body and that the Body is not yet completely built is no proof that he is continuing to give apostles. "

V13 starts with the word "until".... meaning up to the events mentioned in v13.

The gifts mentioned in v11 are given to perfect the saints in v12 to do the building up of the Body until the items in v13 are completed.

The goals are v13, the procedure is v12, and the enablers are in v11.

Drake

[Drake]

Igzy>"Also, I think the results of such unconfirmed succession speak for themselves. "

Ephesians 4 does not describe succession. ... that is a Catholic concept.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy>"First, the fact that he gave apostles for the building of the Body and that the Body is not yet completely built is no proof that he is continuing to give apostles. "

V13 starts with the word "until".... meaning up to the events mentioned in v13.

The gifts mentioned in v11 are given to perfect the saints in v12 to do the building up of the Body until the items in v13 are completed.

The goals are v13, the procedure is v12, and the enablers are in v11.

Drake

If if said "he gives" instead of "he gave" you might have a point. But there is no proof in this verse that he is continuing to give apostles. The baseline of "gave" is only past tense.

We know he has continued to give evangelists, shepherds and teachers, their presence has been and is undeniably manifest. There has been little evidence of apostles and prophets.

As I've said, the Church has not recognized any Apostles since John died. Even under the unlikely possibility that Lee was an apostle, the fact that you and your fringe groups believes it is nothing confirmation. Believe what you want, but it's unreasonable for you to expect anyone else to.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If the NT record was as simple as you make it "no apostles after the first century" then there would be no need for the church in Ephesus to examine them, simply "are they on the approved list, yes or no?" There would also be no need for Paul to give the extensive description of the proofs of his apostleship, none of which were that he was "on the accepted list". If you accept the function of apostles to go out and establish churches then obviously we have had many apostles since the first century.

Therefore I do not find scriptural support for your position, other than to say that no one can claim to write scripture.

The record of the church in Ephesus was in the first century. Revelation was written around 90AD. Also, John was still alive. That was my point, there were no more apostles after the first generation, which ended roughly after the first century.

As I've said before, I did not say there were no Apostles but the 12 and Paul. I said the evidence is that every Apostle had a close association with Jesus or with someone who did. There is no evidence of an Apostle popping up and no being approved by the original Apostles. Peter and James approved Paul. It seems those other mentioned of Apostles in the NT are people Paul or some other original Apostle confirmed.

There is no way to confirm an Apostle without empowerment or the confirmation of know Apostles. Saying "oh he raised up churches" is not enough to confer to anyone (especially Lee) the kind of authority Lee presumed to have.

Also, I think the results of such unconfirmed succession speak for themselves. This board would not be here if they had been otherwise.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I said the evidence is that every Apostle had a close association with Jesus or with someone who did. There is no evidence of an Apostle popping up and no being approved by the original Apostles. Peter and James approved Paul. It seems those other mentioned of Apostles in the NT are people Paul or some other original Apostle confirmed.

I definitely agree with this.

I would consider these the "foundational" apostles and prophets which Paul referred to in Eph. 2.19-20.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you define an apostle as "a sent one" from the Lord then there are obviously still apostles to this day. If you define apostle as one of the gifts that are perfecting the saints and that saints may not be "gifted" as evangelists, prophets, or apostles they can still function in that way, then obviously there are still apostles today.

My dog in this fight is that I was booted over this very matter of Lee being the one and only apostle on the earth.

And bro ZNP you point out that apostle means sent one. So my question is, was Lee a sent one of the Lord?

Other than that all this squabbling over details and qualifications don't matter a hang to me. If Lee got there, how is just the booster rocket.

To put it bluntly : Was Lee the apostle on the earth?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi brother awareness, When this thread was created it did not include the entire discussion from the other thread.
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=334
If after reading my post you want to comment or discuss, I suggest bringing the conversation here, to this thread, in order to preserve the moderators preference for creating this thread.

I'm so lost I'm now ashamed to even comment on this thread. I'm sorry bro Drake if I've been off base.

Thanks for telling me, and sharing the link to original thread, if it is that. I'll try to catch up before I open my mouth again.

I don't know why this concerns me so much. I'm way over Lee being anything but a self made Bible teacher. I guess it's because I was booted out over this very matter. But that turned out to be one of the best things that ever happened to me. Still, it obviously hits a nerve.

Thanks again bro Drake. I think bro Untohim has made that link null and void.