Apostles in The Church: Yesterday and Today

[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.