Apostles, prophets and manifestations of the Holy Spirit

[John of Japan]

If I understand you correctly, is what you are saying, that "Apostles" such as Paul are NOT to be considered at all when tallying up to the number 12 as "True Apostles" (EX: Peter, James, or John)? If I'm interpreting your position as such, then you seem to be going against what must Biblical scholars whom I've read seem to think.

If Baptist Believer does not mind me stepping in here, you are right about the typical scholar. However, scholars of missiology are almost all agreed that the apostle in the NT was a soul winning, church planting missionary. In other words, scholars like to say the apostles were unique as long as they don't have any personal stake in the matter. (The 12 were special, all will agree, but as BB has pointed out, there were a number of others called "apostle" in the NT.) However, when the definition impacts one's own ministry as a missionary, the average missionary will find his ministry among the NT apostles.

 

[John of Japan]

From one of my lectures, missiologists who believe the NT apostle was a soul winning, church planting missionary, rather than some special, elite creature:

A. “The word missionary comes from the Latin word mitto, which means ‘to send.’ It is the equivalent of the Greek word apostello, which also means ‘to send.’ The root meaning of the two words is identical.”[1]
[1] J. Herbert Kane, The Making of a Missionary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 13.

B. “To whom should the term “missionary” be applied? Obviously today's missionary is not in the same class with the twelve apostles, who must forever remain in a class by themselves (Lk 22:30; Re 21:14). They do, however, have much in common with the 'second-string' apostles who were sent out by the various churches on teaching and preaching missions to all parts of the Roman Empire.”[2]
[2] Ibid., 14.

C. “Paul stated that not only was he ordained a preacher, he was also an apostle. Paul knew that he was an apostle (see Acts 22:21; I Tim. 1:1). A missionary is, in a sense, an apostle. The word “missionary” is the exact Latin equivalent for the Greek word “apostle.” Both words have the same meaning—“one who has been sent.” Jesus said to His disciples after His resurrection, “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (John 20:21).”[3]
[3] G. Christian Weiss, The Heart of Missionary Theology (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible, 1976), 66-67.

D. “The very name of the book (of Acts) is in keeping with this through. The word ‘apostle’ (from the Greek apostello—‘I send’) is a synonym for ‘missionary’ (from the Latin mitto—‘I send’). An apostle, or missionary, is a ‘sent-one,’ and so the book might just as accurately have been called ‘The Doings of the Missionaries.’”[4]
[4] Robert Hall Glover, The Bible Basis of Missions (Chicago: Moody Press, 1946), 26.

E. “After a careful examination of the Biblical data James Hastings in his Dictionary of the Apostolic Church comes to the following conclusion: ‘The cumulative effect of the facts and probabilities stated above is very strong—so strong that we are justified in affirming that in the New Testament there are persons other than the Twelve and St. Paul who were called apostles, and in conjecturing that they were rather numerous. All who seemed to be called by Christ or the Spirit to do missionary work would be thought worthy of the title, especially such as had been in personal contact with the Master.’ This conclusion is substantiated by the usage of the word apostle for itinerant ministers in the subapostolic age.”[5]
[5] George Peters, "Let the Missionary Be a Missionary,” Bib. Sac. (Oct-Dec. 1965).

F. “In the New Testament there are two kinds of apostles. First, there is the relatively small group of those who were personally chosen and instructed by the Lord. These men held the office of apostle, to which there is no succession. Second, there are those men who had the gift of apostleship and were called ‘messengers [apostoloi] of the churches’ (2 Cor. 8:23). In this group were included such men as Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Andronicus, and Junias.”[6]
[6] David Hesselgrave, Planting Churches Cross-Culturally (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 95.

 

[Van]

So if I understand an Apostle was chosen and sent by Jesus, but a missionary is sent by indwelt believers today. Pastors believe they are "called" to their ministry, and I expect missionaries believe they were "called" to their mission field. Our problem arises when someone says "God told me to tell you something not reflected in scripture." Think Book of Mormon.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If I understand you correctly, is what you are saying, that "Apostles" such as Paul are NOT to be considered at all when tallying up to the number 12 as "True Apostles" (EX: Peter, James, or John)?

Yes, you understand my perspective correctly. There was a new apostle selected to replace Judas Iscariot (see Acts 1) between the Ascension and Pentecost. And Paul referred to "the twelve" (see 1 Corinthians 15:4-6), after the Resurrection and before the Ascension, even though Judas Iscariot was dead and Matthias had not yet been selected -- we can safely assume that Matthias was among the hundreds of witnesses. So Paul did not consider himself to be part of "the twelve."

If I'm interpreting your position as such, then you seem to be going against what must Biblical scholars whom I've read seem to think.

I'm certain that is true. When I was growing up, an oft-repeating saying I heard from many preachers and Sunday School teachers was that Peter and the other apostles jumped the gun by electing Matthias, since he hear nothing in scripture specifically about Matthias after his installation as one of "The Twelve." They would claim that Paul was supposed to replace Judas Iscariot. Of course, that is based on the false belief that there could only be 12 apostles. And, moreover, there are quite a few of "The Twelve" selected by Jesus that are also not referenced by name in scripture beyond the Gospels accounts.

 

[Baptist Believer]

His take though on the canon may still be open and might have continuing revelations from the Lord is very problematic!

It is only problematic to you. You are misrepresenting my position, as usual. I try not to speculate where the Bible is silent. The Bible does not refer to a canon of scripture. This is something that was worked out by the early church. There was a strong consensus as to what books were inspired, so those books were included.

After 2,000 years, well after the Incarnation of Jesus, it is highly unlikely we will see additional written scripture.

However, you should already know this if you have been reading my responses. I'm getting the impression that you don't.

Are there any modern day Apostles and prophets operating in the same sense as was in OT and NT?

Yes. But that is a different thing than "The Twelve." I have previously responded very specifically to this, but you don't seem to have read it.

Are they then gifted to do signs and wonders...

As I have demonstrated in previous posts, signs and wonders were/are not limited to the apostles.

...and to write revelations to us...

No.

...and pronounce additional ones?

I don't know what this means.

I haven't seen him address this, but if he believes the canon is still open then I disagree.

Thank you for being fair with my words. I do not proclaim the canon 'open' or 'closed' since I don't think the Bible actually addresses the subject. For all practical purposes, I don't expect Christendom to universally agree on any new written revelation, so that settles the issues in my mind.

 

[Baptist Believer]

So if I understand an Apostle was chosen and sent by Jesus...

Jesus called me into ministry, although I do not personally have the gift of an apostle. I would hope that everyone who is in active ministry is called my Jesus into it instead of those who decided to become a minister as a career move.

...but a missionary is sent by indwelt believers today.

I don't know how things work in your church, but in every Baptist church I have been a part of, the church recognizes and affirms those that the body believes have already been called by Jesus into ministry, and commissions them to go forth with support from that body.

Pastors believe they are "called" to their ministry, and I expect missionaries believe they were "called" to their mission field. Our problem arises when someone says "God told me to tell you something not reflected in scripture."

Sure. But that's why we have a written word of God, to have a somewhat objective test and guide for our faith.

Think Book of Mormon.

Some people think that granting that there is some possibility that the canon of scripture leaves one vulnerable to Mormons. I have found exactly the opposite. Mormon missionaries are quite used to dismantling belief in the closing of the canon of scripture. When I spent five months in conversation with Mormon missionaries, I granted them the possibility that the canon of scripture might still be open (they were surprised, but happy) until I asked them how one could know whether or not additional scripture was inspired. They jumped to the "burning in the bosom" testimony (which is fine if one wants to shut down their minds and be duped), so I showed them the differences between the teachings of the KJV (which they claim to believe) and the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. They claim the KJV Bible (and all other translations) have been corrupted, so when you press them to their logical conclusions about the KJV Bible being completely unreliable compared to the Book of Mormon, you simply make that point that their faith is exclusively on Joseph Smith, Jr.'s claims and the texts he created.

Once you get there (not that hard to do), you ask them about Joseph Smith, Jr.'s vision again, and they will give you one of the many versions of Smith's vision that claimed that 'no one was preaching the true gospel upon the earth' at the time of Smith's vision.

Then you simply go to 3 Nephi 28:7-12, 18-23 in the Book of Mormon and have them read Smith's pseudo-King James writing (cribbing from many different Bible stories) where it plainly teaches that the Three Nephites were commissioned by Christ to spread the true gospel in the Americas until the Second Coming, never tasting of death. In Mormon culture, they often talk about the Three Nephites and how members might have encountered one of them in everyday life (something like Christians believing they have "entertained angels unawares"), so they should understand this immediately:

Joseph Smith's vision AND the Book of Mormon cannot both be true.​

Either Joseph Smith, Jr., received a lying vision claiming the gospel was not being preached (contradicting the alleged words of Christ in the Book of Mormon), or the Christ of the Book of Mormon is incorrect (throwing the value of the Book of Mormon away) claiming that the gospel would continue to be proclaimed in the Americas.

At that point, point them back to the King James Bible and explain the story of the Bible and the gospel (going beyond just the atonement) and tell them that the Jesus revealed in the KJV (which they claim to believe) is calling them to follow Him, no matter where it leads.

I have used this technique several times with Mormons and it causes a huge uproar. The first time I tried this line of reasoning, it was with two Mormon missionaries I had been dialoging with. One was so shaken he had an emergency transfer home, and I pray he came to faith in Jesus. His former partner was joined by a new missionary for the next visit, and the former partner essentially told me that he only had two months left on his mission and he was going to finish it (with the private implication to me that he didn't believe it anymore), while the replacement missionary looked on in shock. I was invited to the Stake President's home to have a conversation, and I talked with him at length about Mormon doctrine (with the two missionaries present) and discovered he was less informed about Mormon doctrine than I was. He got very upset by our discussion and I was asked to leave. The next day, the two missionaries stopped by my home to inform me that from that moment onward, they were forbidden to talk to me since they had been informed I was a "son of perdition" and would only harm their faith.

That basic pattern has repeated every time I have talked to Mormons about their faith. One has to be careful to lay the groundwork for trusting the Bible first, otherwise you will likely intellectually drive them into atheism.

 

[Van]

SNIP
.

Just because we accept believers are "led" by their indwelt Holy Spirit, which is also called "the Spirit of Christ" we do not accept that the "leading" constitutes the explicit calling by Jesus.

Every born anew believer has been called into ministry as "ambassadors of Christ."

The Book of Mormon is a destructive heresy.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Just because we accept believers are "led" by their indwelt Holy Spirit, which is also called "the Spirit of Christ" we do not accept that the "leading" constitutes the explicit calling by Jesus.

I strongly disagree. The Great Shepherd is still speaking to His sheep.

Every born anew believer has been called into ministry as "ambassadors of Christ."

Yes, but not every believer is called by God to prepare for and work in certain ministry roles.

The Book of Mormon is a destructive heresy.

I agree completely.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, you understand my perspective correctly. There was a new apostle selected to replace Judas Iscariot (see Acts 1) between the Ascension and Pentecost. And Paul referred to "the twelve" (see 1 Corinthians 15:4-6), after the Resurrection and before the Ascension, even though Judas Iscariot was dead and Matthias had not yet been selected -- we can safely assume that Matthias was among the hundreds of witnesses. So Paul did not consider himself to be part of "the twelve."


I'm certain that is true. When I was growing up, an oft-repeating saying I heard from many preachers and Sunday School teachers was that Peter and the other apostles jumped the gun by electing Matthias, since he hear nothing in scripture specifically about Matthias after his installation as one of "The Twelve." They would claim that Paul was supposed to replace Judas Iscariot. Of course, that is based on the false belief that there could only be 12 apostles. And, moreover, there are quite a few of "The Twelve" selected by Jesus that are also not referenced by name in scripture beyond the Gospels accounts.

Was Paul an inspired Apostle then, called by the Lord Jesus?

 

[Van]

I strongly disagree. The Great Shepherd is still speaking to His sheep.

Yes, but not every believer is called by God to prepare for and work in certain ministry roles.

I agree completely.

Let us agree to disagree.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is only problematic to you. You are misrepresenting my position, as usual. I try not to speculate where the Bible is silent. The Bible does not refer to a canon of scripture. This is something that was worked out by the early church. There was a strong consensus as to what books were inspired, so those books were included.

After 2,000 years, well after the Incarnation of Jesus, it is highly unlikely we will see additional written scripture.

However, you should already know this if you have been reading my responses. I'm getting the impression that you don't.


Yes. But that is a different thing than "The Twelve." I have previously responded very specifically to this, but you don't seem to have read it.


As I have demonstrated in previous posts, signs and wonders were/are not limited to the apostles.


No.


I don't know what this means.


Thank you for being fair with my words. I do not proclaim the canon 'open' or 'closed' since I don't think the Bible actually addresses the subject. For all practical purposes, I don't expect Christendom to universally agree on any new written revelation, so that settles the issues in my mind.

John was the last living Apostle, so the canon being then closed in not a maybe or probably, as there has been no additional revelations from God to us since John passed away!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Was Paul an inspired Apostle then, called by the Lord Jesus?

Yes, but he was not one of The Twelve. Moreover, there were other apostles beyond just The Twelve and Paul.

I have previously addressed this here. Quoting from that previous post:

--

You are confusing manifestations (“sign gifts”) of the Holy Spirit with an office. Gifts are given to all, while some are called into special roles (“offices”). In regard to the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, I believe these are different from “spiritual gifts” given elsewhere as a mode of service. Manifestations are enablings given, as needed, to believers in ministry activities.

I also think you are confusing the gift of an apostle with The Twelve whom Jesus selected to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. He led them as God led the 12 tribes in the wilderness. While there were 12 close disciples, many other disciples were usually with Jesus, including women, many of them from the very beginning in Galilee (see Luke 8:1-3; Matthew 27:55). Moreover, the category of apostles includes more than just The Twelve original persons directly selected by Jesus. It also includes Matthias (replacement for Judas Iscariot), Paul, Barnabas (Acts 14:3-4, 14), Andronicus, Junia (Romans 16:7), and probably a number of others in the first century of the church.​

--

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus called me into ministry, although I do not personally have the gift of an apostle. I would hope that everyone who is in active ministry is called my Jesus into it instead of those who decided to become a minister as a career move.


I don't know how things work in your church, but in every Baptist church I have been a part of, the church recognizes and affirms those that the body believes have already been called by Jesus into ministry, and commissions them to go forth with support from that body.


Sure. But that's why we have a written word of God, to have a somewhat objective test and guide for our faith.


Some people think that granting that there is some possibility that the canon of scripture leaves one vulnerable to Mormons. I have found exactly the opposite. Mormon missionaries are quite used to dismantling belief in the closing of the canon of scripture. When I spent five months in conversation with Mormon missionaries, I granted them the possibility that the canon of scripture might still be open (they were surprised, but happy) until I asked them how one could know whether or not additional scripture was inspired. They jumped to the "burning in the bosom" testimony (which is fine if one wants to shut down their minds and be duped), so I showed them the differences between the teachings of the KJV (which they claim to believe) and the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. They claim the KJV Bible (and all other translations) have been corrupted, so when you press them to their logical conclusions about the KJV Bible being completely unreliable compared to the Book of Mormon, you simply make that point that their faith is exclusively on Joseph Smith, Jr.'s claims and the texts he created.

Once you get there (not that hard to do), you ask them about Joseph Smith, Jr.'s vision again, and they will give you one of the many versions of Smith's vision that claimed that 'no one was preaching the true gospel upon the earth' at the time of Smith's vision.

Then you simply go to 3 Nephi 28:7-12, 18-23 in the Book of Mormon and have them read Smith's pseudo-King James writing (cribbing from many different Bible stories) where it plainly teaches that the Three Nephites were commissioned by Christ to spread the true gospel in the Americas until the Second Coming, never tasting of death. In Mormon culture, they often talk about the Three Nephites and how members might have encountered one of them in everyday life (something like Christians believing they have "entertained angels unawares"), so they should understand this immediately:

Joseph Smith's vision AND the Book of Mormon cannot both be true.​

Either Joseph Smith, Jr., received a lying vision claiming the gospel was not being preached (contradicting the alleged words of Christ in the Book of Mormon), or the Christ of the Book of Mormon is incorrect (throwing the value of the Book of Mormon away) claiming that the gospel would continue to be proclaimed in the Americas.

At that point, point them back to the King James Bible and explain the story of the Bible and the gospel (going beyond just the atonement) and tell them that the Jesus revealed in the KJV (which they claim to believe) is calling them to follow Him, no matter where it leads.

I have used this technique several times with Mormons and it causes a huge uproar. The first time I tried this line of reasoning, it was with two Mormon missionaries I had been dialoging with. One was so shaken he had an emergency transfer home, and I pray he came to faith in Jesus. His former partner was joined by a new missionary for the next visit, and the former partner essentially told me that he only had two months left on his mission and he was going to finish it (with the private implication to me that he didn't believe it anymore), while the replacement missionary looked on in shock. I was invited to the Stake President's home to have a conversation, and I talked with him at length about Mormon doctrine (with the two missionaries present) and discovered he was less informed about Mormon doctrine than I was. He got very upset by our discussion and I was asked to leave. The next day, the two missionaries stopped by my home to inform me that from that moment onward, they were forbidden to talk to me since they had been informed I was a "son of perdition" and would only harm their faith.

That basic pattern has repeated every time I have talked to Mormons about their faith. One has to be careful to lay the groundwork for trusting the Bible first, otherwise you will likely intellectually drive them into atheism.

Paul was the last commissioned Apostle of Lord Jesus, and John last to die, and God has been silent via revelation since then!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but he was not one of The Twelve. Moreover, there were other apostles beyond just The Twelve and Paul.

I have previously addressed this here. Quoting from that previous post:

--

You are confusing manifestations (“sign gifts”) of the Holy Spirit with an office. Gifts are given to all, while some are called into special roles (“offices”). In regard to the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, I believe these are different from “spiritual gifts” given elsewhere as a mode of service. Manifestations are enablings given, as needed, to believers in ministry activities.

I also think you are confusing the gift of an apostle with The Twelve whom Jesus selected to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. He led them as God led the 12 tribes in the wilderness. While there were 12 close disciples, many other disciples were usually with Jesus, including women, many of them from the very beginning in Galilee (see Luke 8:1-3; Matthew 27:55). Moreover, the category of apostles includes more than just The Twelve original persons directly selected by Jesus. It also includes Matthias (replacement for Judas Iscariot), Paul, Barnabas (Acts 14:3-4, 14), Andronicus, Junia (Romans 16:7), and probably a number of others in the first century of the church.​

--

Paul replaced Judas, and so would be seen as being among the 12!

 

[Baptist Believer]

John was the last living Apostle, so the canon being then closed in not a maybe or probably, as there has been no additional revelations from God to us since John passed away!

I have essentially said that very thing, but -- unlike you -- I am unwilling to make pronouncements about the Bible that the Bible does not make.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have essentially said that very thing, but -- unlike you -- I am unwilling to make pronouncements about the Bible that the Bible does not make.

By refusing to do that though, leaves door wide open to anyone like a Smith or White can claim to be an Apostle or Prophet!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Paul was the last commissioned Apostle of Lord Jesus...

Demonstrate your assertion using the scriptures or stop making the claim.

...God has been silent via revelation since then!

What do you mean by "revelation?" Furthermore, demonstrate your assertion using the scriptures.

 

[Baptist Believer]

By refusing to do that though, leaves door wide open to anyone like a Smith or White can claim to be an Apostle or Prophet!

No I don't. Just because you think I'm an idiot doesn't make me one.

I pointed out how my viewpoint works to undermine Mormonism here.

It's becoming quite clear to me that you don't actually read my responses, you just make accusations. That runs contrary to the spirit of a discussion board.

 

[Baptist Believer]

By refusing to do that though, leaves door wide open to anyone like a Smith or White can claim to be an Apostle or Prophet!

Have you actually thought of the implications of your statement?

You have made the claim that since I don't add to biblical claims my own beliefs, the scripture is not powerful enough to deal with cultists. You are saying that the scripture is inadequate to the task of reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness without adding your own viewpoints to it.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Paul replaced Judas, and so would be seen as being among the 12!

Clearly, you don't know the Bible, nor could be bothered to look up my citations in previous posts:

Acts 1:15-17, 21-26
At this time Peter stood up among the brothers and sisters (a group of about 120 people was there together), and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry... Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all people, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.​

Paul was explicitly NOT a replacement for Judas Iscariot, nor was he among The Twelve.