1. 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!

Do we have Apostles today?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by rlvaughn, Jan 26, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have put together a list of all who either were or could be construed as apostles.

    The Twelve
    [Matthew 10:2ff; Mark 3:14ff; Luke 12ff.]
    1. Simon, who is called Peter
    2. Andrew, Simon’s brother
    3. James, the son of Zebedee
    4. John, James’ brother
    5. Philip
    6. Bartholomew (perhaps the same as Nathanael)
    7. Thomas
    8. Matthew the publican (Levi)
    9. James the son of Alphaeus
    10. Lebbaeus Thaddaeus (Judas the brother of James)
    11. Simon (Zelotes) the Canaanite
    12. Judas Iscariot

    Other Apostles
    13. Matthias [Acts 1:23,26; 6:2]
    14. Paul [Acts 14:4,14; Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:1]
    15. Barnabas [Acts 14:4,14; I Cor. 9:1-6]
    16. James, the Lord’s brother [Gal. 1:19; I Cor. 9:5]
    17. Silas (Silvanus) [I Thess. 1:1; 2:6; II Thess. 1:1]
    18. Timothy (Timotheus) [I Thess. 1:1; 2:6; II Thess. 1:1]
    19. Apollos [I Corinthians 4:6,9]

    Other Possiblities
    20. Andronicus [Romans 16:7]
    21. Junia [Romans 16:7]
    22. Epaphroditus [Philip. 2:25-30; messenger, apostle]
    23. Two Unnamed Brethren [II Cor. 8:18,22,23; messenger, apostle]
     
    #21 rlvaughn, Feb 1, 2003
  2. mountainrun

    mountainrun New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Andronicus and Junia were not apostles, they were merely notable among them. As Paul mentions, they were believers before he was and therefore must have worked with the 12 in Jerusalem.
    Notably apparently.
    The Greek has different words for apostle and messenger, contrary to Ben's misunderstanding of the word.

    Apostolos and aggelos.

    Angel, not apostle, means messenger.
    Charismatic frauds such as Bonnke do not qualify as anything but frauds.
    there are just as many pages debunking this false resurrection as there are supporting it.

    MR
     
    #22 mountainrun, Feb 1, 2003
  3. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dear brother, you are probably right about Andronicus and Junia, although the construction could admit either intepretation. You are generally correct about messenger, but the word translated messenger in II Cor. 8:23 & Phil. 2:25 is "apostolos," not "aggelos."

    I take no stock in the apostolic frauds such as the one you mention. I think it is correct to identify them as frauds. But the scriptures are authoritative, and it is clear that more than the Twelve & Paul are referred to as apostles in the New Testament. That just can't be denied. How you interpret those facts is another matter.
     
    #23 rlvaughn, Feb 2, 2003
  4. mountainrun

    mountainrun New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    rl, I agree that there are more than 12 who are called apostle. However, there are only twelve who Jesus called His apostles.
    That is, those who were sent by Jesus Himself.

    There are indeed several others who were called apostles, but not of the same order.

    I believe the focus of this discussion concerns whether there are apostles today.

    There are not.

    Do these so called apostles of today perform miracles? No.
    Have they witnessed the resurrection of Christ?
    No.
    Would we accept their writings as scripture?
    Again, most certainly not.

    Why not? Because they have no evidence of being apostles.

    Other than the replacement of one false apostle, there is nothing in the Bible to prove that apostle is a continuing office.

    Given the fact that the replacement mentioned above must be able to bear witness to the life and resurrection, as seen in Acts, no one today meets the qualifications.

    MR
     
    #24 mountainrun, Feb 2, 2003
  5. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I intended to call attention to the lists of the apostles when I posted them above. There are three lists of the Twelve apostles in the Gospels. There is also a list of the eleven (the 12 less Judas) in Acts 1:13. There are a few interesting items to which I want to notice. In every list Peter is always first and Judas is always last (except Acts, because Judas isn't listed). The order of listing the other apostles is not the same in each list. Though the order is not the same, each list breaks down into three groups that include the same four individuals in each group every time.
    1. Peter, Andrew, James, John
    2. Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas
    3. James the less, Judas Lebbaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas Iscariot
    Of what type of order would you consider these others to be?

    Welcome, brother bar_elohim, to the Baptist Board. Do you mean by your profile that you are a Baptist who has had a pentecostal experience or that you are a Pentecostal?
     
    #25 rlvaughn, Feb 2, 2003
  6. mountainrun

    mountainrun New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting breakdown of the list of apostles.
    I wonder the purpose of the grouping you have noted.

    {edit]
    ======
    I believe I have found the purpose of the grouping.
    While the order is different, except as you noted, for Peter and Judas, the first name of each group is always the same.
    Apparently rank is involved.
    Peter was first among the apostles acc. to Matthew 10. Philip and James may have been leaders of their group and subject to Peter.
    Maybe.
    ========


    Anyway, the first class of apostles is that which was chosen by Jesus.
    Apostles of the Lamb.
    The second class is that of messengers of the churches, as you noted in 2 Cor. 8:23.

    The word there is not from apostolos but apostoloi. {This from MacArthur's commentary on
    2 Cor.}

    There were apostles of the Lamb and apostles of the churches. There is no record of any of the apostles of either class being replaced, apart from the one doomed to destruction.
    When they died, the NT was complete and the office died with them.

    MR

    [ February 03, 2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: mountainrun ]
     
    #26 mountainrun, Feb 2, 2003
  7. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    MR, thanks for noting the first name in each group is the same. I did not notice that. I've not come to any conclusions on the purpose, but it is very intriguing. The idea of ranking seems to fit simply enough, except that it also seems contrary to some things that Jesus said to the disciples. For example:
    You are correct concerning "apostoloi" and "apostolos," but that is not because they are two different words - "apostoloi" is the nominative case plural for "apostolos."
    It can been shown from the book of Acts that James, one of the Twelve, was not replaced when he died. But to say that the apostles of the second class were not replaced requires too many assumptions. Can the death of any of that class of apostles even be found in the New Testament? And since they are "messengers" of or "ones sent" by the churches, why would there even be a need for such a distinction at all?
     
    #27 rlvaughn, Feb 3, 2003
  8. mountainrun

    mountainrun New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the distinction is made in the Bible by calling one group the apostle's of the Lamb and the other not.
    The second group may be called sent ones or messengers but it is of the church.


    As to rank, while my notion of rank in the subgroups of apostles cannot be substantiated,
    Peter was called the first among the apostle's in Matthew 10.
    John 1:39 reveals that Peter was not the first called by Jesus so "first" in this case does not refer to order but rank.

    The passages you gave concerning the first shall be last and the last first also concern rank.
    I believe it pertains to ones self image and self placement.
    Good men of high rank shall certainly not be placed below bad men on low rank by God in heaven.

    MR

    MR
     
    #28 mountainrun, Feb 4, 2003
  9. rufus

    rufus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Technically, to be an APOSTLE one had to meet the requirements in the above text.

    Non-Technically, the word "apostle" means "sent out one" and can be applied to all believers.

    Rufus IMHO [​IMG]
     
    #29 rufus, Feb 4, 2003
  10. qwerty

    qwerty New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Acts 1:21, Peter takes a bold step. One might say "he sinks again".

    Jesus said to go back to Jerusalem, and wait for the Holy Spirit. Peter, who was fairly impulsive, couldn't wait. For some reason, he felt the need to appoint an apostle by himself. And then they relied on the time honored tradition of casting lots. There are considerable questions here as to the validity of what Peter did.

    In my opinion, we should not be creating doctrine based on what Peter did before Pentecost.

    Who can call an Apostle, anyway? I think that only Jesus can call an Apostle. Jesus called the first twelve. Then He called Paul. Paul was called in a different way than the first twelve, and did much more than the first twelve.
     
    #30 qwerty, Feb 4, 2003
  11. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since these are messengers - sent ones, apostles - of the church, that's why I'm wondering if we do not still have sent ones in the same sense as this secondary group even today. That would in no way impeach the integrity and authority of the Twelve as a special group of apostles. Thanks for the further thoughts about rank. Bro. Jim suggested that I check Broadus' comments in his Harmony of the Gospels. I will try to look that up once I get to the library. In the meantime, perhaps someone has Broadus' book and could comment on it.

    I have read & heard considerable questions as to the validity of what Peter did, I can't find any in the context of Luke's writing. And though Peter did lead in this matter, the whole church in one accord, not just Peter, appointed Matthias.
     
    #31 rlvaughn, Feb 4, 2003
  12. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are there men today who have the same authority as Peter, Paul, John, et al? Not really. Yes there are men who give leadership in the various fellowships and organizations. In some ways, these brethren carry out "apostolic" functions. But to call them "apostles" and to let them exercise the commensurate authority does violence to the Baptist Distinctive of the Independence and Autonomy of the Local Church.
     
    #32 Squire Robertsson, Feb 4, 2003
  13. qwerty

    qwerty New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    quote:
    "And though Peter did lead in this matter, the whole church in one accord, not just Peter, appointed Matthias. "

    And that is just the point.
    The whole situation is one of not obeying the last command that Jesus gave. Jesus said wait for the Holy Spirit. Peter led out with his own idea, and the people followed. They did "something" instead of "nothing" (waiting).

    And then there are those who build an entire doctrine around what Peter and this group did. In my opinion, it is not wise to attribute wisdom to the action that they took.
     
    #33 qwerty, Feb 4, 2003
  14. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    IMO, to equate "wait" with "do nothing" is a mistake. The disciples did a number of things in this period of time - visit the temple, worship & praise God, pray, etc. Also to equate "wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit" with total absence of the Holy Spirit is again, IMO, a mistake (cf. John 20:22,23). But, ultimately, the fact that the inspired author Luke numbers Matthias with the Twelve with no hint that anything is amiss (cf. Acts 6:2) is sufficient to satisfy my mind.
     
    #34 rlvaughn, Feb 4, 2003
  15. rufus

    rufus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    rlvaughn, to your last post, I say, AMEN! AMEN!

    rufus [​IMG]
     
    #35 rufus, Feb 5, 2003
  16. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Milton in his great sonnet On His Blindness writes:

    "They also SERVE who only STAND and WAIT"

    (Emphasis mine)

    The concept is standing and waiting for an event to happen. It is not a stillness or nothingness, but an anticipatory waiting.

    We watch and wait for the Lord's return, but in the interim we work, we plan and we preach....still waiting upon the Lord for that glorious event.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
    #36 Jim1999, Feb 5, 2003
  17. qwerty

    qwerty New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Waiting is incredibly important.
    But I don't think the definition of waiting is appointing apostles.
     
    #37 qwerty, Feb 5, 2003
  18. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    qwerty, our thoughts on "waiting" reveal some difference of approach in interpretation. It seems that you interpret the actions of Acts 1 in light of your idea of "waiting," while I interpret "waiting" in light of the actions of the church during the period of "waiting."
     
    #38 rlvaughn, Feb 8, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...