Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio>”How can we not make a distinction? Does anyone really believe that "Andronicus and Junia notable among the apostles, and in Christ before Paul," (Rom. 16.7) should be measured by the same standards? And this highlights the difficulty we face on this forum. How do we measure Witness Lee? What are the N.T. standards by which the apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers are measured?”

Ohio,

I agree with much of what you said. My point is that denying that those NT apostles even exist is contradicted by Pauls own commendation of them. All the gifts you listed are for the building up of the Body of Christ and there is no compelling evidence that Paul was the last apostle.

Drake

I said Paul was the last of the original ambassadors of Christ, the last of the apostles who laid the foundation of God's house, and among the foundational apostles who wrote the New Testament.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I said Paul was the last of the original ambassadors of Christ, the last of the apostles who laid the foundation of God's house, and among the foundational apostles who wrote the New Testament.

I think that is an excellent distinction. We have "foundational apostles" based on Paul's words, and we have those that will build on this foundation that has been laid.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I said Paul was the last of the original ambassadors of Christ, the last of the apostles who laid the foundation of God's house, and among the foundational apostles who wrote the New Testament.

Ohio,

Yes you did.

You listed 3, Peter, John, Paul, of the foundational 12+1 who authored books in the New Testament.

How about those who authored books in the NT who were not of the foundational 12+1?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, author of Hebrews, James, Jude.

That would be twice as many authors nonfoundational as foundational and yet I'm sure we would agree that their accounts and letters are foundational .

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Yes you did.

You listed 3, Peter, John, Paul, of the foundational 12+1 who authored books in the New Testament.

How about those who authored books in the NT who were not of the foundational 12+1?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, author of Hebrews, James, Jude.

That would be twice as many authors nonfoundational as foundational and yet I'm sure we would agree that their accounts and letters are foundational .

Drake

This is my understanding:

Matthew (Levi) was one of the 12.
Mark was with the 12, and gave us Peter's Gospel. Mark was a connecting link between Peter and Paul.
Luke was with Paul for many years, almost exclusively. (2 Tm 4.11)
Hebrews was authored by Paul, and written by Luke. (My conclusion)
James and Jude, brothers of the Lord, "saw Jesus" and believed following the resurrection.

Had Stephen, Barnabas, Timothy or Titus written accounts, probably the early church would have received those as well.

Initially the books of Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation were not readily included in the NT canon, until church fathers gathered to gather all the evidences.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is my understanding:

Matthew (Levi) was one of the 12.
Mark was with the 12, and gave us Peter's Gospel. Mark was a connecting link between Peter and Paul.
Luke was with Paul for many years, almost exclusively. (2 Tm 4.11)
Hebrews was authored by Paul, and written by Luke. (My conclusion)
James and Jude, brothers of the Lord, "saw Jesus" and believed following the resurrection.

Had Stephen, Barnabas, Timothy or Titus written accounts, probably the early church would have received those as well.

Initially the books of Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation were not readily included in the NT canon, until church fathers gathered to gather all the evidences.

Ok. We could debate authorship in another thread. But no need for this thread bacause it is clear that the NT is not made up exclusively of the 12+Paul. Also, that leaves 8 of the 12 who did not contribute to the NT canon. Therefore, the correlation between apostles and authors of the NT is not established. Like the giving of gifts to the Body so also is the NT scripture given to us, it is the Holy Spirit that compels.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. We could debate authorship in another thread. But no need for this thread because it is clear that the NT is not made up exclusively of the 12+Paul. Also, that leaves 8 of the 12 who did not contribute to the NT canon. Therefore, the correlation between apostles and authors of the NT is not established. Like the giving of gifts to the Body so also is the NT scripture given to us, it is the Holy Spirit that compels.

Drake

How do we separate apostleship from the authority to write scripture?

How do we separate the accepted canon of the early church from the compelling of the Spirit?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do we separate apostleship from the authority to write scripture?

How do we separate the accepted canon of the early church from the compelling of the Spirit?

On the first, the argument was not about apostles writing the NT, but whether that was an exclusive function to the 12+Paul.

On the second, there is no debate among main stream evangelical or fundamental. ., only Catholics would include other writings. We can agree the NT is complete.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

On the first, the argument was not about apostles writing the NT, but whether that was an exclusive function to the 12+Paul.

On the second, there is no debate among main stream evangelical or fundamental. ., only Catholics would include other writings. We can agree the NT is complete.

Drake

The Lord himself confirmed that after Revelation there was to be no more direct revelation (Rev 22:18). This basically coincided with the end of the life of the last of the original Apostles, John.

I believe it is no coincidence that after that time the Church recognized no believer as an Apostle.

Seems pretty clear that if you were a first century Apostle, you could potentially write Scripture. No more new Scripture, no need of any new apostles. Do we need teachers, shepherds, church planters? Yes. But we don't need apostles in the sense of the original ones. Their mission has been completed and their special authority no longer exists. If would be unreasonable and irresponsible for the Church to think otherwise. There is a reason only fringe groups like the LCM have Apostles. Every one of them has abuse their "authority."

To quibble that there are still "sent ones" that raise up churches so therefore we can have someone like Lee who thought he was in charge of everything is crazy reasoning.

Lesson clear enough? Duh!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How do we separate apostleship from the authority to write scripture?

How do we separate the accepted canon of the early church from the compelling of the Spirit?

If God calls you and sends you, then you are an apostle.

If God calls you to write scripture and complete the word of God then that is your calling. You can be an apostle without being called to write scripture. That is my understanding.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. We could debate authorship in another thread. But no need for this thread bacause it is clear that the NT is not made up exclusively of the 12+Paul. Also, that leaves 8 of the 12 who did not contribute to the NT canon. Therefore, the correlation between apostles and authors of the NT is not established. Like the giving of gifts to the Body so also is the NT scripture given to us, it is the Holy Spirit that compels.

Drake

Fair point, there is no scriptural basis to say that the term "apostle" is equated with the writers of scripture. Certainly some that wrote did claim to be apostles and did claim to be called to write the scripture. But others that were apostles did not write scripture and didn't claim that calling.

The closest equivalent I can find is "the fellowship of the apostles" which the saints kept prior to the NT being completed.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Fair point, there is no scriptural basis to say that the term "apostle" is equated with the writers of scripture. Certainly some that wrote did claim to be apostles and did claim to be called to write the scripture. But others that were apostles did not write scripture and didn't claim that calling.

The closest equivalent I can find is "the fellowship of the apostles" which the saints kept prior to the NT being completed.

Accurate summary ZNP.

[Drake]

Igzy >”The reason Drake and those like him want people to believe Lee was an apostle is to confer to him the authority to order the Church around, and thus confirm their own decisions to let him define their lives. I.e. misery loves company. Lee couldn't convince enough people by the power of his teachings, so he has to co-opt the authority of an apostle to intimidate people into following him. For this cause he has the willing accomplices like Drake and other stubborn true believers, who say to themselves, If I have to follow Lee then everyone else does too. ”

Igzy,

What odd beliefs you own about me. Accomplices. Intimidated, letting others define my life..... ?

You apparently are bent on defining me on your terms. Hate to be the bearer of bad news... I don’t fit your description.

Thanks
Drake