Me4Him, please show me from the Bible where it is necessary for apostles to have the power to do miracles.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are there Apostles today?
- Thread starter tamborine lady
- Start date
I agree with Marcia. There is no "office" of an Apostle today. And Scripture does indicate that it ceased.Originally posted by John of Japan:
I'm an independent Baptist missionary, don't believe the office of apostle needs to be restored because it there is no Scripture saying it was ever abolished, and don't believe I have any powers to do miracles other than prayer. An apostle in the Bible is simply a church-planting missionary. Not only I, but many independent Baptist, non-Charismatic, dispensational missionaries believe this.
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
--The office of the twelfth Apostle had to be filled, according to prophecy. After that it would cease. Then it was empty because of the death of Judas. That was the only reason it was empty--Judas was unsaved, of course.
Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
--There you have it--the twelve Apostles, by office, as Scripture declares. There were no other Apostles, except Paul as he describes himself as "one born out of due time." The Scriptures give many reasons why Paul should be included in the number of the original Apostles. But there are no others that are commissioned as such.
Paul even introduces his epistles as an apostle of Jesus Christ.
However, Sylvanus, Timotheus, Barnabas, Silas, and a number of others that we hardly hear of are referred to as apostles in the New Testament. How much do you hear of Sylvanus, and what do you know of him? Did he see Christ? His resurrection? Was he qualified to fulfill the office of an apostle according to Acts chapter 1. The answer is no.
As I pointed out to you earlier (and you seem to reject), the word apostle means "One sent with a message (i.e., the gospel).
In that sense, 'every Christian ought to be a missionary.' That in no way trivializes the meaning of the word. It is reality. Just as we are followers of Christ (disciples), we ought to be missionaries (apostles) in that general sense. That is what Sylvanus was.
Ephesians 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
The foundation is the prophets of the Old Testament, the Apostles of the New Testament (i.e. the authors of the Bible), and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. The building (allegorically describing the church), includes all from every generation, who have trusted Christ as Saviour. Paul writing to Timothy said that it wasn't their background that counted: "strangers, foreigners, etc.," They were now one in Christ, just as the building is one structure. But the foundation was already laid--the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ.
DHK
But the foundation was already laid--the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ.
"EXACTLY".
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up-(on) a spiritual house, (foundation)
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
"EXACTLY".
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up-(on) a spiritual house, (foundation)
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
prophecynut
New Member
Silas was a prophet (Acts 15:22,32).
Apostles mentioned above served during the Church Age from Acts 2 to Rev. 3, which is part of the New Testament that includes the gospels.
I consider the Church apostles as secondary apostles to the original 12, they are chosen and sent out by the Holy Spirit whereas the 12 were chosen and sent out by Christ.
The Church foundation is not made up of OT prophets, everything about the church was still a mystery in their time and not revealed until Paul's ministry (Romans 16:25; Eph. 3:3-5; 3:9; Col. 1:26-27).
The chief cornerstone was laid with Christ's appearance, a foundation made up of OT prophets would not of predated the laying of the cornerstone.
The apostles and prophets in Eph. 2:20 are the same ones mentioned in 3:5 and 4:11. Other Scriptures within the context of the Church that refer to prophets are: Acts. 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10.
Marcia
Active Member
John of Japan, I understand what you are saying. But the confusion comes in the meaning of "apostle" and how it's used. You are referring to it in a legitimate way, but the way I've run across it is not legitimate. It has to be defined because there are growing numbers of those today who think the office of apostle includes those who can get revelation from God. This is connected to the movement I referred to in my previous post. They believe in new revelation and that in some cases, it even supercedes the Bible. We are talking about the modern apostolic reformation movement here that includes C Peter Wagner and others.
DHK,
Paul does not meet the qualifications Peter described in Acts 1 to replace Judas. In fact, from Paul's own words, we know that Jesus appeared to the 12 before appearing to him. Since Judas' was dead, Paul must be acknowledging someone else (i.e. Matthias) as the 12th apostle.
The 12 apostles were to sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Paul's 'measure of rule' was tied to his evangelistic efforts. he had a measure of rule in Corinth because he brought the Gospel there and a church formed as a result. not only that, but he SHARED a measure of rule there with his co-authors ('we'). So he, Silas, and Timothy shared authority there, assuming II Corinthians is all one letter.
**The Scriptures give many reasons why Paul should be included in the number of the original Apostles. But there are no others that are commissioned as such.
Paul even introduces his epistles as an apostle of Jesus Christ.***
Paul does not claim to be one of the 'original apostles'. I Corinthians 15 is clear that he is not. So Paul is one of the apostles who were not among the 12, like Barnabas. Paul may have had other qualifications that Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy did not have, but scripture indicates that they were apostles as well.
**However, Sylvanus, Timotheus, Barnabas, Silas, and a number of others that we hardly hear of are referred to as apostles in the New Testament. How much do you hear of Sylvanus, and what do you know of him? Did he see Christ? His resurrection? Was he qualified to fulfill the office of an apostle according to Acts chapter 1. The answer is no. ***
And neither was Paul. But that is beside the point. Acts 1 laid out qualifications for replacing Judas, not for being an apostle in general. You say that certain people we 'hardly hear of' are referred to as apostles. The scripture does, nevertheless, refer to these men as apostles. We hear little about most of the 12. in fact, we probably hear more about Silas and Timothy than we do of most of the 12, as individuals. These men co-authored some of the epistles we hold dear.
Marcia,
I agree with you that some of the concepts of what apostles are going around are not scripture. However, it is Biblical for Christians to receive revelation. Peter knew who Christ was by revealation. The Father revealed it to him. The Spirit reveals the truth to people, that is revelation. It does not matter whether it has been revealed before. It's still revelation. Paul prayed for the Ephesians to have the Spirit of revelation.
God showed plenty of prophets things and gave them plenty of prophecies that are not recorded in the Bible. God revealed Himself through Christ, and not all christ's actions are revealed in scripture. We know this because the Bible tells us.
But the Bible does reveal certain things-- essential doctrines of the faith. And we are to hold fast the faith we have received. So men should not be adding or taking away from the basic doctrines of the faith.
But can God reveal something specific? Can he reveal to a man that he is called to take the Gospel to an unreached people group? Yes. Can He reveal to someone that someone else is in danger? Yes. Can God tell someone where they lost their keys? Yes. Personally, I'm glad all this stuff is not in the Bible, or else no one would be able to read through it. Just a list of all the men God would ever call to preach would be enough to render the Bible too long to read in a lifetime, probably.
God has not lost His ability to communicate. He is sovereign and never said He would not communicate to His church outside of scripture.
Paul does not meet the qualifications Peter described in Acts 1 to replace Judas. In fact, from Paul's own words, we know that Jesus appeared to the 12 before appearing to him. Since Judas' was dead, Paul must be acknowledging someone else (i.e. Matthias) as the 12th apostle.
The 12 apostles were to sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Paul's 'measure of rule' was tied to his evangelistic efforts. he had a measure of rule in Corinth because he brought the Gospel there and a church formed as a result. not only that, but he SHARED a measure of rule there with his co-authors ('we'). So he, Silas, and Timothy shared authority there, assuming II Corinthians is all one letter.
**The Scriptures give many reasons why Paul should be included in the number of the original Apostles. But there are no others that are commissioned as such.
Paul even introduces his epistles as an apostle of Jesus Christ.***
Paul does not claim to be one of the 'original apostles'. I Corinthians 15 is clear that he is not. So Paul is one of the apostles who were not among the 12, like Barnabas. Paul may have had other qualifications that Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy did not have, but scripture indicates that they were apostles as well.
**However, Sylvanus, Timotheus, Barnabas, Silas, and a number of others that we hardly hear of are referred to as apostles in the New Testament. How much do you hear of Sylvanus, and what do you know of him? Did he see Christ? His resurrection? Was he qualified to fulfill the office of an apostle according to Acts chapter 1. The answer is no. ***
And neither was Paul. But that is beside the point. Acts 1 laid out qualifications for replacing Judas, not for being an apostle in general. You say that certain people we 'hardly hear of' are referred to as apostles. The scripture does, nevertheless, refer to these men as apostles. We hear little about most of the 12. in fact, we probably hear more about Silas and Timothy than we do of most of the 12, as individuals. These men co-authored some of the epistles we hold dear.
Marcia,
I agree with you that some of the concepts of what apostles are going around are not scripture. However, it is Biblical for Christians to receive revelation. Peter knew who Christ was by revealation. The Father revealed it to him. The Spirit reveals the truth to people, that is revelation. It does not matter whether it has been revealed before. It's still revelation. Paul prayed for the Ephesians to have the Spirit of revelation.
God showed plenty of prophets things and gave them plenty of prophecies that are not recorded in the Bible. God revealed Himself through Christ, and not all christ's actions are revealed in scripture. We know this because the Bible tells us.
But the Bible does reveal certain things-- essential doctrines of the faith. And we are to hold fast the faith we have received. So men should not be adding or taking away from the basic doctrines of the faith.
But can God reveal something specific? Can he reveal to a man that he is called to take the Gospel to an unreached people group? Yes. Can He reveal to someone that someone else is in danger? Yes. Can God tell someone where they lost their keys? Yes. Personally, I'm glad all this stuff is not in the Bible, or else no one would be able to read through it. Just a list of all the men God would ever call to preach would be enough to render the Bible too long to read in a lifetime, probably.
God has not lost His ability to communicate. He is sovereign and never said He would not communicate to His church outside of scripture.
I'm not saying "Signs and wonders" have stopped, they haven't, but today, you need "SPIRITUAL VISION" to "SEE" and recognize them,
in the day of the original Apostles, "PHYSICAL VISION" was all that was necessary.
Today, those without "Spiritual vision" believe the "signs and wonders" are the results of "Coincidence/accidents", whatever,
but physically seeing a "lame man", instantly walk, is hard to deny.
I've seen people "HEALED", but not "INSTANTLY", as some TV preachers would have us believe,
this is a "SPIRITUAL KINGDOM", and physical vision won't reveal what is "going on", you must be "Born again" to "SEE" the "KINGDOM" at work.
Hello again, DHK. Back from a two day trip, approaching the weekend with little time to interact here. I do appreciate your thought-provoking contributions, though.
Yes, I do reject your definition of apostle. What you are describing is the Greek word aggelos. The apostolos was more than that. I could quote a number of authorities, but I'll only take time with one today. According to J. B. Lightfoot, "The word apostolos in the first instance is an adjective signifying 'despatched' or 'sent forth.' Applied to a person, it denotes more than aggelos. The "Apostle" is not only the messenger, but the delegate of the person who sends him. He is entrusted with a mission, has powers conferred upon him." (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, p. 92)
In order to plant a church, I have to have authority from somewhere, and where is that? My authority is from the church and the Holy Spirit Who sent me (Acts 13:1-4).
I am willing to say, as I already have, that the 12 were special. They were the Apostles of the Lamb, and got the whole Church Age rolling. However, DHK, you have still not interacted with me about all of the others called apostle in the NT. You isolate Paul from Barnabas in your theology here, but they were both equally called "apostle" (Acts 14:14).
In my view, these other apostles were church-sent, Holy Spirit-sent apostles, as opposed to the original 12.
Marcia, I agree with you in opposition to these who are hijacking the legitimate Biblical doctrine of apostleship. I oppose new revelation, etc. But please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater as you bark up the wrong tree!
Tamborine Lady, who originally started this thread, said early on, "One of the reasons I asked was that there are churches that believe there are Apostles today, and that they go about starting churches and getting them going and then turning that church over to the congregation, and help them get/elect another pastor and then move on and do it again." This describes what I believe about apostleship, not the false view that you have described here.
Me4Him
I am talking about real miracles, signs, and wonders, not just ones you need 'spiritual vision' to see.
John of Japan
You make a good point. If we assume, without scriptural support, that apostleship is gone, then basically we are left with no scriptural basis for the role of missionary and many other 'components' necessary to spread the Gospel around the world. The Bible contains a lot of doctrinal information about the role of apostleship and its connection to planting new churches.
What I do not see in scripture is an ecclesiology that just has 'pastors' and nothing else. In fact, I cannot even find the local church pastor as it is conceived of by many today in scripture. The early churches had apostles starting churches and elders who rose up from within the congregation (eventually) pastoring them.
I am talking about real miracles, signs, and wonders, not just ones you need 'spiritual vision' to see.
John of Japan
You make a good point. If we assume, without scriptural support, that apostleship is gone, then basically we are left with no scriptural basis for the role of missionary and many other 'components' necessary to spread the Gospel around the world. The Bible contains a lot of doctrinal information about the role of apostleship and its connection to planting new churches.
What I do not see in scripture is an ecclesiology that just has 'pastors' and nothing else. In fact, I cannot even find the local church pastor as it is conceived of by many today in scripture. The early churches had apostles starting churches and elders who rose up from within the congregation (eventually) pastoring them.
The following passage is used to argue that signs and wonders accompany an apostle.
I Cor. 12
11. I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
12. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
I read an alternate interpretation once that the 'signs' of the apostle were his sufferings, and were accompanied by those other supernatural things. I cannot whole-heartedly accept this view.
Historically, a lot of people known as apostles to different nations were known to have done miracles. Gregory, apostle of Armenia, and Patrick, apostle of Ireland are two examples.
I Cor. 12
11. I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
12. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
I read an alternate interpretation once that the 'signs' of the apostle were his sufferings, and were accompanied by those other supernatural things. I cannot whole-heartedly accept this view.
Historically, a lot of people known as apostles to different nations were known to have done miracles. Gregory, apostle of Armenia, and Patrick, apostle of Ireland are two examples.
Yes, Link. This (actually 2 Cor.) is the sole passage I know of that can be used to say an Apostle must be a miracle doer. It is dangerous to build a doctrine on one passage, though. Also, the Greek in this passage is the kicker. I interpret the nouns in the "in signs and wonders and mighty deeds" phrase as instrumental case, meaning I would translate it, "by means of signs and wonders and mighty deeds."
I consider the true sign of an apostle to be the souls God saves through him in the place where he has been sent. I base this on 1 Cor. 9:2, "If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." When God uses a missionary for His glory in winning souls and planting churches, that proves he was called to the land where he ministers.
Personally, for the record, I believe in miracles through prayer and have seen God graciously work. However, I don't find a healing ministry per se anywhere in the Bible. The miracles of the Bible were incidental to the Gospel, there to help it, not to become an end in themselves.
I consider the true sign of an apostle to be the souls God saves through him in the place where he has been sent. I base this on 1 Cor. 9:2, "If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." When God uses a missionary for His glory in winning souls and planting churches, that proves he was called to the land where he ministers.
Personally, for the record, I believe in miracles through prayer and have seen God graciously work. However, I don't find a healing ministry per se anywhere in the Bible. The miracles of the Bible were incidental to the Gospel, there to help it, not to become an end in themselves.
I don't see anything in the passage there in II Corinthians that indicates that souls saved is the sign of an apostle.
The argument though that the Corinthian church was the 'seal' of Paul's apostleship is a compelling argument for this.
But there are apostles who fit your model of apostleship and have done miracles as well. I suspect we have a similar view of apostleship, even though I tend to be charismatic in my outlook.
The argument though that the Corinthian church was the 'seal' of Paul's apostleship is a compelling argument for this.
But there are apostles who fit your model of apostleship and have done miracles as well. I suspect we have a similar view of apostleship, even though I tend to be charismatic in my outlook.
Perhaps that is the ideal. But is that the way that things have to be done? It that is what is implicitly taught in Scripture? I don't believe so. I don't believe that Timothy was sent out by any church, and yet he was referred to aa an apostle.
Acts 16:1-3 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Paul was on his missionary journey, saw some good qualities in Timothy, and took him with him. Timothy was not sent out by any church, yet became one of the closest companions that Paul ever had on his mission journeys, and eventually the pastor of the church at Ephesus.
There are still some in our day and age, that feel called of God to be a "missionary" or church planter, and without being sent out by any church, go to the area that they believe God has called them to and their labor. Being sent by a church is ideal, but not necessary.
Was William Carey sent by a church. If my memory serves me correctly his church was hyper-Calvinistic and did everything possible to dissuade Carey from going to the mission field, even saying that if God wanted the heathen to be saved he would do in his own good time without your help or mine!! I believe that Carey organized a society, which helped to send him.
I have isolated Paul because he did see Christ. He saw Christ on the road to Damascus. He was taught by Christ, presumably when he was in Arabia. He had direct revelation from the Lord. He quotes the exact words of Christ a number of times:
"It is better to give than to receive."
1 Corinthians 11:23-24 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Where and when did Paul receive this of the Lord?
What was his experience in 2Cor.12, when he speaks of going to the 3rd heaven? Did he see Jesus then?
Paul wrote 13 epistles of our New Testament. In one place it refers to him as greater than the other apostles. In 2Peter 3:15,16, Peter not only acknowledges the epistles of Paul, he acknowledges them as Scripture--the inspired Word of God. "The Twelve" recognized the unique "apostleship" of Paul.
The others: Silas, Sylvanus, Timothy, etc., we don't here about so much. We just cannot assume that they were all commissioned by a church, for Timothy wasn't. They were ones "sent with a message." Does it mean officially sent? I don't think (at this point) that it has to mean that.
One could use the same word "evangelist" as a parallel. One is called to be an evangelist, just as a missionary is called. But in another sense, every Christian is called to be an evangelist--to evangelize. Wouldn't you agree that the word has a more general meaning?
They were certainly in a different class than the original 12, and than the Apostle Paul, who was in a class of his own. I won't doubt that they were all Holy Spirit-sent. But were they all church-sent? I am for the concept, but I can't back it up with Scripture (totally).
DHK
Point taken about 1 Cor. 9:2. We must win souls to Christ to start a church, but Paul was no doubt referring to the church at Corinth with this verse since it was a letter to the church.
I think we do have a similar view of apostleship, and we'll just have to agree to disagree about miracles in this context, lest we hijack the thread.
It's Saturday morning here in Japan, and I gotta get going so I can prepare for my church I'm planting to meet tomorrow!
Hi, DHK.
I just have a short time. It's Saturday morning here in Japan and I need to get going to the church. But I do want to interact a little bit here.
I can't prove that NT apostles were always church-sent. However, there were definitely some, since the word for messengers in "the messengers of the churches" (2 Cor. 8:23) is apostolos.
I just have a short time. It's Saturday morning here in Japan and I need to get going to the church. But I do want to interact a little bit here.
Point taken. My case here is kind of weak.
I can't prove that NT apostles were always church-sent. However, there were definitely some, since the word for messengers in "the messengers of the churches" (2 Cor. 8:23) is apostolos.I believe you need to go back and check the history on this one. I believe the pastor who said that was convinced later, and helped Carey.
But is it valid to say, as I do, that since the Bible says they were apostles, there is a second kind of apostle other than the original 12, which are the same as our church-planting missionaries today? If not, why not? If not, where are church-planting missionaries in the Bible? I can't accept that something so fundamentally taught in Matt. 28:18-20 would be ignored throughout the rest of the NT.
DHK
The verses you quoted do show that Timothy traveled with Paul at the commendation of two churches. What I see is that the Holy Spirit sends post-ascension apostles, and that ideally he uses the saints to confirm this. Take a look at this verse on Timothy
I Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Notice that his gift was given to him BY prophecy. This was accompanied by the laying on of hands of the elders. This does not state that the gift came through the hands of the elders.
Compare this to how Barnabas and Saul were sent forth.
Acts 13
2. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
Notice that the Holy Spirit spoke here. The Spirit called them (v. 2), and the Spirit sent them. (v. 4.) The men the Spirit spoke to separated them to the work.
This passage does not say that ‘the church ‘ per se sent them. There were a group of ministers—it does not say elders, even—who heard the Holy Ghost speaking and sent these men off. The passage does not tell us if the whole church got involved or not, or whether these men were in any official leadership structure. It is conceivable that the Antioch church had not appointed elders yet, since it was still fairly on in the church’s development. If it did have elders, perhaps it is significant that no one in this passage is mentioned as being an elder. The Spirit sent these men forth, and they left in the authority of the Spirit.
If I had only Luke’s version of this, I might conclude that this is where Paul became an apostle, since Paul starts referring to him, along with Barnabas, as apostles at this point. But from Galatians, I get the impression that he was an apostle before this.
Another verse to notice about Timothy is the gift he received from Paul’s hands.
II Timothy 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
I see scriptural patterns for the Spirit sending out apostles and confirming it by speaking to brethren. Elders or brethren can lay hands on an apostle to separate him. The Lord can also gift someone through the laying on of hands of an apostle. The Lord can confirm His calling through existing apostles or through brethren in the church.
Timothy and Silas were apparently ‘apostles of Christ.’ How does it get more official than that?
The only ‘apostles of the churches’ in scripture I know of were delivery men, delivering money, if I am not mistaken, for the church in Corinth.
DHK, I know you want an airtight case for apostleship. What we can get is an airtight case for the sovereignty of God. There is a pattern of apostleship in scripture, and various teachings on it. But we can’t go from there to having apostles in our churches just by reasoning it out. The key element is that the Spirit has to do the calling. Therefore, we must believe, as the Scripture teaches, that the Spirit can reveal things to the church, and to individuals, like who is supposed to be an apostle. If the Spirit will no longer communicate to believers that they are called, and only speaks what is spoken specifically in scripture, then you can’t have apostles, or people being called to preach either.
If we accept, as the Bible teaches, that the Spirit can communicate to individuals and the church, then the idea of the Spirit calling individuals to be apostles makes sense.
I have studied this topic intensely and written a 20 page chapter for a book on house churches. If anyone is interested in receiving it, please let me know. How pass on my email address without posting it on a public forum?
The verses you quoted do show that Timothy traveled with Paul at the commendation of two churches. What I see is that the Holy Spirit sends post-ascension apostles, and that ideally he uses the saints to confirm this. Take a look at this verse on Timothy
I Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Notice that his gift was given to him BY prophecy. This was accompanied by the laying on of hands of the elders. This does not state that the gift came through the hands of the elders.
Compare this to how Barnabas and Saul were sent forth.
Acts 13
2. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
Notice that the Holy Spirit spoke here. The Spirit called them (v. 2), and the Spirit sent them. (v. 4.) The men the Spirit spoke to separated them to the work.
This passage does not say that ‘the church ‘ per se sent them. There were a group of ministers—it does not say elders, even—who heard the Holy Ghost speaking and sent these men off. The passage does not tell us if the whole church got involved or not, or whether these men were in any official leadership structure. It is conceivable that the Antioch church had not appointed elders yet, since it was still fairly on in the church’s development. If it did have elders, perhaps it is significant that no one in this passage is mentioned as being an elder. The Spirit sent these men forth, and they left in the authority of the Spirit.
If I had only Luke’s version of this, I might conclude that this is where Paul became an apostle, since Paul starts referring to him, along with Barnabas, as apostles at this point. But from Galatians, I get the impression that he was an apostle before this.
Another verse to notice about Timothy is the gift he received from Paul’s hands.
II Timothy 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
I see scriptural patterns for the Spirit sending out apostles and confirming it by speaking to brethren. Elders or brethren can lay hands on an apostle to separate him. The Lord can also gift someone through the laying on of hands of an apostle. The Lord can confirm His calling through existing apostles or through brethren in the church.
Timothy and Silas were apparently ‘apostles of Christ.’ How does it get more official than that?
The only ‘apostles of the churches’ in scripture I know of were delivery men, delivering money, if I am not mistaken, for the church in Corinth.
DHK, I know you want an airtight case for apostleship. What we can get is an airtight case for the sovereignty of God. There is a pattern of apostleship in scripture, and various teachings on it. But we can’t go from there to having apostles in our churches just by reasoning it out. The key element is that the Spirit has to do the calling. Therefore, we must believe, as the Scripture teaches, that the Spirit can reveal things to the church, and to individuals, like who is supposed to be an apostle. If the Spirit will no longer communicate to believers that they are called, and only speaks what is spoken specifically in scripture, then you can’t have apostles, or people being called to preach either.
If we accept, as the Bible teaches, that the Spirit can communicate to individuals and the church, then the idea of the Spirit calling individuals to be apostles makes sense.
I have studied this topic intensely and written a 20 page chapter for a book on house churches. If anyone is interested in receiving it, please let me know. How pass on my email address without posting it on a public forum?
Link, I would like to have your chapter on apostleship, please. Please check your "private messages" on the Baptist Board.
How does the Spirit communicate to believers in this day and age?
He leads, guides, directs, illuminates to us the Scriptures.
But I do not believe that he gives the direct spiritual gifts of prophecy and revelatory knowledge that ceased at the end of the first century. He does not speak to us in an audible voice. He does not inspire us in the same way that he inspired the Apostles to write Scripture. Thus he does not give revelation any longer; otherwise one would have to hunt down all over the world every piece of revelation ever given by every Charismatic, collate it, and then add it to the Bible. And then you would still say our Bible is not yet complete because God is still giving revelation. Either he is or he isn't. The canon of Scripture is closed. God is no longer giving out any revelation.
The Holy Spirit leads and guides the beleiver. He illuminates him mind, giving him understanding to the Scriptures. But he never gives him new revelation. The canon of Scripture is closed.
DHK
***He leads, guides, directs, illuminates to us the Scriptures.
But I do not believe that he gives the direct spiritual gifts of prophecy and revelatory knowledge that ceased at the end of the first century.***
Then you must not believe in preacher's being called. The Bible does not have a list of names of all the preacher's who would be called. A lot of preacher's I know can tell you how the Holy Spirit kept revealing to them they were called. And this isn't just Charismatics or Pentecostals. Plenty of Baptists can tell you this.
And what about conviction of sin. Doesn't the Holy Spirit reveal to people's hearts that they are in sin?
>> He does not speak to us in an audible voice. <<
Where does the Bible say God won't do this at times? I don't see any promise that He is going to speak to everyone in an audible voice, but I don't see anything saying He absolutely won't in scripture either.
>>He does not inspire us in the same way that he inspired the Apostles to write Scripture. Thus he does not give revelation any longer; otherwise one would have to hunt down all over the world every piece of revelation ever given by every Charismatic, collate it, and then add it to the Bible.<<
The Bible uses 'revelation' in a broader sense than just revealing of scripture.
And the Bible is crystal clear that not all revelation in the past was put into scripture. Some real prophecies were even left out. So why would we have to put all the prophecies int he world into the Bible?
>> And then you would still say our Bible is not yet complete because God is still giving revelation.<<
God still giving revelation doesn't have anything to do with the Bible being incomplete. The Bible is clear that not all revelation is in the Bible.
Jesus it the ultimate revelation of God to man, not scripture.
>> Either he is or he isn't. The canon of Scripture is closed. God is no longer giving out any revelation.<<
Can you show me any scripture that even hints at any of these ideas? I don't see how your arguments are backed up by the principle of sola scriptura.
I am not arguing that we should add to the Bible. But I am saying we should believe what the Bible teaches about the types of revelation God gives to the church.
But I do not believe that he gives the direct spiritual gifts of prophecy and revelatory knowledge that ceased at the end of the first century.***
Then you must not believe in preacher's being called. The Bible does not have a list of names of all the preacher's who would be called. A lot of preacher's I know can tell you how the Holy Spirit kept revealing to them they were called. And this isn't just Charismatics or Pentecostals. Plenty of Baptists can tell you this.
And what about conviction of sin. Doesn't the Holy Spirit reveal to people's hearts that they are in sin?
>> He does not speak to us in an audible voice. <<
Where does the Bible say God won't do this at times? I don't see any promise that He is going to speak to everyone in an audible voice, but I don't see anything saying He absolutely won't in scripture either.
>>He does not inspire us in the same way that he inspired the Apostles to write Scripture. Thus he does not give revelation any longer; otherwise one would have to hunt down all over the world every piece of revelation ever given by every Charismatic, collate it, and then add it to the Bible.<<
The Bible uses 'revelation' in a broader sense than just revealing of scripture.
And the Bible is crystal clear that not all revelation in the past was put into scripture. Some real prophecies were even left out. So why would we have to put all the prophecies int he world into the Bible?
>> And then you would still say our Bible is not yet complete because God is still giving revelation.<<
God still giving revelation doesn't have anything to do with the Bible being incomplete. The Bible is clear that not all revelation is in the Bible.
Jesus it the ultimate revelation of God to man, not scripture.
>> Either he is or he isn't. The canon of Scripture is closed. God is no longer giving out any revelation.<<
Can you show me any scripture that even hints at any of these ideas? I don't see how your arguments are backed up by the principle of sola scriptura.
I am not arguing that we should add to the Bible. But I am saying we should believe what the Bible teaches about the types of revelation God gives to the church.