Researching apostles...

[Revmitchell]

YOU can not justify one being ceased by the other!

I have to agree.....

 

[awaken]

Nothing I said was opinion. Or don't you recognize the words of Jesus?
Jesus said: "John was the last of the OT prophets." Was he lying or so great is your unbelief in the Scriptures that you don't believe His words.
Believe me; that is not my opinion. Neither were the other things that I said to you.
Be careful what you say, lest it come back to bite you.

The last of hte OT Prophets...being under the Old New Covenant! We now have prophets under the new covenant! Scriptures prove that..He sent them AFTER he ascended!

And that is precisely what it was--an early church in Corinth. It was not an early church of the 21st century where apostles and prophets are no more. They ceased at the end of the first century. There is no more prophetic office.

The early church is THE church! We have failed to follow the pattern!
If you knew what this verse meant:

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Then you would know that prophecy is not for today. They have failed, come to an end, ceased. They are no longer needed. They have served their purpose.[/quote] Well, If you understood...that there is a difference in prophecy and a prophet....then you would understand!

This is a church which you are not a member of; am I correct in saying that? Or are you older than 2,000 years? The Book of Acts is a troubling book for you. It is a book of transition, a book of history, a book of change, a book of the acts of the apostles, their works and history. It is not a book of doctrine. But you don't accept that.
Just because there were prophets in that first century church does not mean there should be prophets today. They did not have a finished or completed canon of Scripture either.

NOWHERE does it say that apostles and prophets ceaced at the completion of the written Word!!!! As a matter of fact Eph. contradicts all of your theories by telling you when they will cease! But you will not receive the Word of God, because if you did it would blow your theories out of the ball park!
Eph. says UNTIL..."we come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ"
NOw you can continue to ignore that scripture all you want! I have also shown scripture where they were in the early churches. NOwhere in scriptues does it say that they will cease!

That is not all that he said:
Mat 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
--Have you lost the context somewhere? I will quote it for you:

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
--He was speaking to his disciples or shall I say The Twelve Apostles.
The sometimes acted in the capacity of prophets. That was the context.

THe context is "rewards" He said in the vs. 40..."he that receiveth YOU"..vs. 41 "He that receiverh a prophet"...vs. 42 "He that giveth a drink" ...they were not the same reference! I do agree that an apostle can operate as a prophet..Jesus did this as I showed earlier! Either way they were expected to have prophets among them1

Even Jesus identified his own disciples as prophets. That is what the passage shows. You sort of missed that in your wild interpretation of Scripture.

He said to his own "apostles" that they were prophets. The apostolic age came to an end when they died! We cannot return to the first century. Your car will not drive backwards in time.

No, I understand completly about the apostles can have the ministry of a prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher etc. But that does not prove or disprove that they are not needed today!

 

[awaken]

You refuted nothing. His qualification was the same as everyone else.

Just because you saw the risen Lord does not qualify you to be an apostle..as your reference pointed out many saw the risen Lord!

UNtil you can prove with scriptures that they are not needed...
Until you can prove with scriptures that Jesus can not call apostles today...
Until you can prove Eph. 4 not to be true as to WHEN they will cease...

Then your theory is just that...A THEORY!

 

[Revmitchell]

Just because you saw the risen Lord does not qualify you to be an apostle..as your reference pointed out many saw the risen Lord!

Just because many saw the risen Lord does not speak to the qualification of the Apostle. However, scripture directly speaks to this:

Act 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

It cannot be more clear.

UNtil you can prove with scriptures that they are not needed...

This is a false standard and not based on scripture.

Until you can prove with scriptures that Jesus can not call apostles today...

It is not a matter of cannot but a matter of does not and that I have shown you from scripture.

Until you can prove Eph. 4 not to be true as to WHEN they will cease...

And this is a prime example of the loosy goosy theology of charismatics.

Then your theory is just that...A THEORY!

You want it to be true so you have blinded yourself to the truth as has been shown you from scripture. Your hyper-focus on this issue show a shallow faith based on what you can get from God which is antithetical to true worship.

 

[DHK]

UNtil you can prove with scriptures that they are not needed...

Then your theory is just that...A THEORY!

There is no onus on him or anyone else to prove "that they are not needed."
One does not prove a negative, just like an atheist cannot prove "There is no God."
The responsibility is upon you to prove that they are needed in the 21st century and to do that from Scripture. So far you haven't. And your interpretation of Scripture given has not been very sound.

 

[awaken]

Just because many saw the risen Lord does not speak to the qualification of the Apostle. However, scripture directly speaks to this:



It cannot be more clear.

If you use that scripture then Paul does not qualify by YOUR standards! Because he was not among them since John! You and others put standards of calling out apostles that is not concrete for all of them!

This is a false standard and not based on scripture.

So you are saying we do not need help in Unity of faith...knowledge of hte Son of God, unto a perfect man...unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ?

It is not a matter of cannot but a matter of does not and that I have shown you from scripture.

I must have missed that scripture????

And this is a prime example of the loosy goosy theology of charismatics.

And this is a prime example of someone not being able to prove their theory!

You want it to be true so you have blinded yourself to the truth as has been shown you from scripture. Your hyper-focus on this issue show a shallow faith based on what you can get from God which is antithetical to true worship.

We are to seek God not from Him!
I do not refuse what he offers to us or deny what the scriptures says to appease others or to defend a religion!

 

[awaken]

There is no onus on him or anyone else to prove "that they are not needed."
One does not prove a negative, just like an atheist cannot prove "There is no God."
The responsibility is upon you to prove that they are needed in the 21st century and to do that from Scripture. So far you haven't. And your interpretation of Scripture given has not been very sound.

I have shown in scriptures the UNTIL...these offices/ministries will be here until as vs. 13 states!

I ask you as I have the Rev....
Do we not need unity of the faith?
and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man?
Unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ?

 

[DHK]

The last of hte OT Prophets...being under the Old New Covenant! We now have prophets under the new covenant! Scriptures prove that..He sent them AFTER he ascended!

No, it simply shows that churches during the first century had prophets, not when they became prophets. And that isn't important. What is significant is they were in the first century. We don't live in that time period called the Apostolic Age.

The early church is THE church! We have failed to follow the pattern!

Go and study ecclesiology. There were early churches, not "the church."
You are following a wrong pattern, a pattern that probably the RCC set in place. There are churches, not "the church."

If you knew what this verse meant:

1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Then you would know that prophecy is not for today. They have failed, come to an end, ceased. They are no longer needed. They have served their purpose.

Well, If you understood...that there is a difference in prophecy and a prophet....then you would understand!

Do your Charismatic friends tell you that? Prophecy has ceased, and with it the office of a prophet.

NOWHERE does it say that apostles and prophets ceaced at the completion of the written Word!!!!

You have been given Scripture before. There is lots of it.
The apostles and their associates were the authors of the NT.
Jesus told them that He would bring to their memories "all things" (that is Scripture) so they could write it down for us.
Peter tells us to be mindful and remember the "words of the apostles" (Scripture).
When the Apostolic Age ended with the death of John, so did the office of the apostles and prophets.

As a matter of fact Eph. contradicts all of your theories by telling you when they will cease! But you will not receive the Word of God, because if you did it would blow your theories out of the ball park!

No, rather it supports it. You do not want to harmonize Scripture with Scripture. Since the offices of the apostles and prophets have ceased they are not for today. Paul wrote that to the church at Ephesus, not to your church.

Eph. says UNTIL..."we come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ"
NOw you can continue to ignore that scripture all you want! I have also shown scripture where they were in the early churches. NOwhere in scriptues does it say that they will cease!

You fail to look at context. The office of an apostle ceased in the first century. The letter was written to the church at Ephesus, not to you.

THe context is "rewards" He said in the vs. 40..."he that receiveth YOU"..vs. 41 "He that receiverh a prophet"...vs. 42 "He that giveth a drink" ...they were not the same reference! I do agree that an apostle can operate as a prophet..Jesus did this as I showed earlier! Either way they were expected to have prophets among them1

The entire context is Jesus giving instruction to His Twelve Apostles, not to you. His Apostles were also prophets. You will distort any passage to try and find a way to justify your perverted doctrine.

No, I understand completly about the apostles can have the ministry of a prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher etc. But that does not prove or disprove that they are not needed today!

It proves you don't understand the passage and have made up your mind not to understand the passage.

 

[awaken]

No, it simply shows that churches during the first century had prophets, not when they became prophets. And that isn't important. What is significant is they were in the first century. We don't live in that time period called the Apostolic Age.

Go and study ecclesiology. There were early churches, not "the church."
You are following a wrong pattern, a pattern that probably the RCC set in place. There are churches, not "the church."

Do your Charismatic friends tell you that? Prophecy has ceased, and with it the office of a prophet.

You have been given Scripture before. There is lots of it.
The apostles and their associates were the authors of the NT.
Jesus told them that He would bring to their memories "all things" (that is Scripture) so they could write it down for us.
Peter tells us to be mindful and remember the "words of the apostles" (Scripture).
When the Apostolic Age ended with the death of John, so did the office of the apostles and prophets.

No, rather it supports it. You do not want to harmonize Scripture with Scripture. Since the offices of the apostles and prophets have ceased they are not for today. Paul wrote that to the church at Ephesus, not to your church.

You fail to look at context. The office of an apostle ceased in the first century. The letter was written to the church at Ephesus, not to you.

The entire context is Jesus giving instruction to His Twelve Apostles, not to you. His Apostles were also prophets. You will distort any passage to try and find a way to justify your perverted doctrine.

It proves you don't understand the passage and have made up your mind not to understand the passage.

So I guess by this you just admitted that you think
the church today is in complete unity of faith!
We have the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man! (have we ALL reached that maturity?)
We are the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ! (REALLY???)

No DHK and others...we have not reached any of those!!!!!

 

[awaken]

Do your Charismatic friends tell you that? Prophecy has ceased, and with it the office of a prophet.

So now are you saying that only a prophet can prophesy? Come on DHK! You have to know that is not true!

 

[awaken]

I stated in my Op reasons why I believe that apostles are still here today...

Debates and question have come up and after researching and addressing these questions I will post my closing statement because I believe we have discussed most everything concerning this..maybe not???

The NT clearly identifies four levels of apostleship or four ways in which the word “apostle” is used.

Jesus being the one true apostle sent by God!

The Twelve - The original twelve apostles (the eleven plus Matthias [Acts 1:26]) constitute a unique and closed company. They will have the distinct role of judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28) and their names will be inscribed on the twelve foundation stones of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14).
( I will post that there was the qualifications that were required of the one who took the place of Judas (Acts 1:21-22), but that did not apply to anyone called afterwards because Paul did not meet the requirement of being with John).

Paul and others - Another group of apostles, equal in authority to the twelve, includes Paul (1 Cor. 15:9), Barnabas (Acts 14:4,14), James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 15:7), and perhaps Silas (1 Thess. 2:7), Andronicus (Rom. 16:7) and Junias (Rom. 16:7). 1 Cor. 15:7 may be referring to yet more apostles.

Messengers and Church Representatives - Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25) and the unnamed brethren of 2 Cor. 8:23 (possibly including Titus) fall into this category in which the term "apostle" (35x in Paul, 80x in the NT) is used in a non-technical, broad sense.

Now to refute all the arguments one last time...
What qualifications are essential for apostleship (as Paul and others)?
Eye-Ear Witness to the Risen Christ - To be an apostle one must have both seen and heard the risen Christ. This is implied by Acts 1:21-22; 1 Cor.. 9:1, and 15:6-9. But simply seeing the risen Christ did not make someone an apostle, for many saw and heard Him ( 1 Cor. 15:6) who were not apostles.

A Personal Call and Commission from Jesus - This is evident from the statements of Paul himself (Gal. 1:1; Rom. 1:1,5; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; etc.).

Signs and Wonders (Acts 5:12; Romans 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12; but non-apostles also performed signs and wonders; see Stephen in Acts 6 and Philip in Acts 8).

Extreme suffering (Col. 1:24; 2 Cor. 4:7-15; 11:23-33; etc.; certainly countless others also suffer).

The Writing of Scripture...

It is widely assumed that an essential part of apostleship is the authority to write inspired Scripture. There are three problems with this view:

Scripture nowhere asserts that all apostles could write Scripture simply because they were apostles.

Several of the apostles did not, in fact, write Scripture. Does this disqualify them from being apostles?

People other than apostles did, in fact, write Scripture (Mark, Luke, the author of Hebrews, Jude).

There is no explicit or conclusive evidence that apostleship, entailed the authority to write Scripture or required that one do so. Therefore, it is conceivable that God could raise up apostles subsequent to the closing of the biblical canon without threatening the latter's finality and sufficiency. The canon is closed, not because God has stopped speaking, nor because there are no more apostles, but because God sovereignly closed it. God simply ceased inspiring and preserving canonical revelation. Basing the finality of the canon on the cessation of apostleship is disastrous. How can the absence of apostles guarantee the closing of the canon when non-apostles wrote Scripture? Such a view would require us to assert, absurdly, that as long as there are non-apostolic Christians the canon is open!


Does Scripture teach that apostleship was restricted to the first century church? No. Are there apostles today? I certainly believe that it is the agenda of the Holy Spirit to bring them forth before the coming of the Lord. However, there is considerable debate as to whether those with an "apostolic anointing" today are in the office of an apostle. I am open to the possibility that they are.

Ephesians 4:11-16 strongly suggests that apostles are essential "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ". This statement pertains not only to the apostolic but also to the ministries of prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher (or pastor-teacher), all of which I expect to see functioning fully before the coming of the Lord.

 

[Yeshua1]

The qualifications are different. And it depends on how one defines "prophet". If one is a prophet in the same way Paul was as received new revelations from God then one does not hold to the closed canon. Of course that means new doctrines are on the table. And I reject that. But I do not believe that if the office of Apostle is closed then the office of Prophet must also be closed. That would be a begging the question fallacy.

not if you define the prophet as being one who was gifted to foretell from the holy spirit, to have onging revealtions/doctrines, to basically operate similair to an Apsotle in that regard... the ongoing revaltory function of BOTH of them ceased when the canon was completed to us!

 

[Yeshua1]

I stated in my Op reasons why I believe that apostles are still here today...

Debates and question have come up and after researching and addressing these questions I will post my closing statement because I believe we have discussed most everything concerning this..maybe not???

The NT clearly identifies four levels of apostleship or four ways in which the word “apostle” is used.

Jesus being the one true apostle sent by God!

The Twelve - The original twelve apostles (the eleven plus Matthias [Acts 1:26]) constitute a unique and closed company. They will have the distinct role of judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28) and their names will be inscribed on the twelve foundation stones of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14).
( I will post that there was the qualifications that were required of the one who took the place of Judas (Acts 1:21-22), but that did not apply to anyone called afterwards because Paul did not meet the requirement of being with John).

Paul and others - Another group of apostles, equal in authority to the twelve, includes Paul (1 Cor. 15:9), Barnabas (Acts 14:4,14), James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 15:7), and perhaps Silas (1 Thess. 2:7), Andronicus (Rom. 16:7) and Junias (Rom. 16:7). 1 Cor. 15:7 may be referring to yet more apostles.

Messengers and Church Representatives - Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25) and the unnamed brethren of 2 Cor. 8:23 (possibly including Titus) fall into this category in which the term "apostle" (35x in Paul, 80x in the NT) is used in a non-technical, broad sense.

Now to refute all the arguments one last time...
What qualifications are essential for apostleship (as Paul and others)?
Eye-Ear Witness to the Risen Christ - To be an apostle one must have both seen and heard the risen Christ. This is implied by Acts 1:21-22; 1 Cor.. 9:1, and 15:6-9. But simply seeing the risen Christ did not make someone an apostle, for many saw and heard Him ( 1 Cor. 15:6) who were not apostles.

A Personal Call and Commission from Jesus - This is evident from the statements of Paul himself (Gal. 1:1; Rom. 1:1,5; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; etc.).

Signs and Wonders (Acts 5:12; Romans 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12; but non-apostles also performed signs and wonders; see Stephen in Acts 6 and Philip in Acts 8).

Extreme suffering (Col. 1:24; 2 Cor. 4:7-15; 11:23-33; etc.; certainly countless others also suffer).

The Writing of Scripture...

It is widely assumed that an essential part of apostleship is the authority to write inspired Scripture. There are three problems with this view:

Scripture nowhere asserts that all apostles could write Scripture simply because they were apostles.

Several of the apostles did not, in fact, write Scripture. Does this disqualify them from being apostles?

People other than apostles did, in fact, write Scripture (Mark, Luke, the author of Hebrews, Jude).

There is no explicit or conclusive evidence that apostleship, entailed the authority to write Scripture or required that one do so. Therefore, it is conceivable that God could raise up apostles subsequent to the closing of the biblical canon without threatening the latter's finality and sufficiency. The canon is closed, not because God has stopped speaking, nor because there are no more apostles, but because God sovereignly closed it. God simply ceased inspiring and preserving canonical revelation. Basing the finality of the canon on the cessation of apostleship is disastrous. How can the absence of apostles guarantee the closing of the canon when non-apostles wrote Scripture? Such a view would require us to assert, absurdly, that as long as there are non-apostolic Christians the canon is open!


Does Scripture teach that apostleship was restricted to the first century church? No. Are there apostles today? I certainly believe that it is the agenda of the Holy Spirit to bring them forth before the coming of the Lord. However, there is considerable debate as to whether those with an "apostolic anointing" today are in the office of an apostle. I am open to the possibility that they are.

Ephesians 4:11-16 strongly suggests that apostles are essential "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ". This statement pertains not only to the apostolic but also to the ministries of prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher (or pastor-teacher), all of which I expect to see functioning fully before the coming of the Lord.

te office of the Apostle was defined by Jesus as being His original 12, and paul!

If you want to make Apsotle mean missionary, fine, but think you want it to mean same as being one of the 12 for today, correct?

 

[awaken]

te office of the Apostle was defined by Jesus as being His original 12, and paul!

If you want to make Apsotle mean missionary, fine, but think you want it to mean same as being one of the 12 for today, correct?

How do you put Paul in with the original 12? Did he walk among them til the baptism of JOhn? Isn't that one of the qualifications to be one of the 12?

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you put Paul in with the original 12? Did he walk among them til the baptism of JOhn? Isn't that one of the qualifications to be one of the 12?

Jesus had chosen him to be an Apostle in SAMEfashion as the original 12, as peter acknowledged that he was the Apsotle sent to gentiles as he was to the jews!

Again, HAD to beither one of the 12, a disciple walking with jesus as mathius, or else saw the risen lord!

NONE qualify today, or since John death!

 

[awaken]

Jesus had chosen him to be an Apostle in SAMEfashion as the original 12, as peter acknowledged that he was the Apsotle sent to gentiles as he was to the jews!

Again, HAD to beither one of the 12, a disciple walking with jesus as mathius, or else saw the risen lord!

NONE qualify today, or since John death!

So you are saying Jesus can not call others as he did Paul? How and by what authority does anyone have to claim this...especially if it does not say so in scripture!

 

[DHK]

It is widely assumed that an essential part of apostleship is the authority to write inspired Scripture. There are three problems with this view:

Scripture nowhere asserts that all apostles could write Scripture simply because they were apostles.

Several of the apostles did not, in fact, write Scripture. Does this disqualify them from being apostles?

People other than apostles did, in fact, write Scripture (Mark, Luke, the author of Hebrews, Jude).

There is no explicit or conclusive evidence that apostleship, entailed the authority to write Scripture or required that one do so. Therefore, it is conceivable that God could raise up apostles subsequent to the closing of the biblical canon without threatening the latter's finality and sufficiency. The canon is closed, not because God has stopped speaking, nor because there are no more apostles, but because God sovereignly closed it. God simply ceased inspiring and preserving canonical revelation. Basing the finality of the canon on the cessation of apostleship is disastrous. How can the absence of apostles guarantee the closing of the canon when non-apostles wrote Scripture? Such a view would require us to assert, absurdly, that as long as there are non-apostolic Christians the canon is open!

Go through the authors of the NT. Who are they--one by one.
They are either apostles or close associates of the apostles?
The ones who were not apostles--where did they get their information--the apostles!

Furthermore what does Scripture tell us about this matter:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
--Jesus was speaking to His apostles here. There is no one, not you, not anyone alive today that can claim this promise. Has the Holy Spirit led you into ALL TRUTH? Are you going to make a claim to omniscience here, as some unwisely do? Do you have all the truth there is to have? Is that what it is teaching?
Of course not! It is a promise specific to the Apostles, that the Holy Spirit would bring back to their memories all the truth that Christ had taught them. He would lead them in all truth, in order that they would be able to write all of God's truth down for us to have throughout all ages. Christ is promising the apostles, the writers of the NT, that the Spirit would give them the words of Scripture, His words. "All Truth" refers to the exact words of Christ, plus the words that God wants in the pages of His Word. Whatever the Spirit would speak to them would be inspired of God, and He would show them things to come. He does not do that today.

2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Here Peter stresses to his reader that he has something to tell them that is very important. Put in your minds. Remember it. Be mindful of the WORDS spoken:
First by the prophets (authors of the OT).
Second, by "us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.
--He tells us that the authors of the Scripture are the prophets and apostles. He tells us to remember that and be mindful of these words spoken by them.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Here in the same chapter, in verse three he starts speaking about "ignorant scoffers."
In verse 15 he refers to the writings of Paul, and in verse 16 he refers to them as Scripture, some of which is hard to understand. But those that are unlearned take these Scriptures and other Scriptures (being unlearned and unstable) and wrest them to their own destruction (spiritual destruction). This would describe much of the Charismatic movement if you study what goes on within their ranks.

It is worth noting here that Peter knew which of Paul's writings were Scripture and which were not.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
--Look at this tremendous experience that Peter describes. He describes the experience that he had on the Mount of Transfiguration, when he saw Christ glorified, and a voice come booming out of heaven saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." He saw Elijah and Moses there. There is no greater experience that a person could have then that one. And yet after all of that, what does Peter conclude:

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
--We have God's Word, and God's Word is greater than any experience you may have. You may think you have the greatest mountain top experience ever (You can't beat mine), but the Word of God is more reliable, greater, surer, then that. You do well to take heed to God's Word as a light that shines in a dark place..."
His emphasis was not on experience but on the Word, a lesson that Charismatics should quickly learn.

Jude wrote about 70 A.D. Apart from the writings of John he was one of the last to write. What does he say:
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--There were many things Jude could have written. He could have told us of the childhood of Jesus. But he didn't. The Holy Spirit directed him to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
--The faith is that body of doctrine which we as Christians believe today. They already had it then. There was very little to be added. All of Paul's epistles and the three synoptic gospels had already been written. They had the faith; they were to contend for it. It was the body of doctrine that was delivered to them by the Apostles. Both Peter and Paul had been martyred by the time this was written.

"once delivered to the saints" John Gill eloquently comments on this phrase:

This is said to be "delivered to the saints": it was delivered by God the Father to Christ as Mediator, and by him to his apostles, who may more especially be meant by "the saints", or holy men; who were chosen to be holy, and to whom Christ was made sanctification, and who were sanctified by the Spirit of God; and this faith, being a most holy faith, is fit for holy men, and only proper to be delivered to them, and preached by them; and by them it was delivered to the churches, both by word and writing; and this delivery of it supposes that it is not an invention of men, that it is of God, and a gift of his, and given in trust in order to be kept, held forth, and held fast; and it was but "once" delivered, in opposition to the sundry times and divers manners in which the mind of God was formerly made known; and designs the uniformity, perfection, and continuance of the doctrine of faith; there is no alteration to be made in it, or addition to it; no new revelations are to be expected, it has been delivered all at once: and therefore should be "earnestly contended for"; for could it be lost, another could not be had; and the whole of it is to be contended for; not only the fundamentals, but the lesser matters of faith; and not things essential only, but also what are circumstantial to faith and religion; every truth, ordinance, and duty, and particularly the purity of faith, and its consistency: and this contention includes a care and solicitude for it, to have it, own it, and hold it fast, and adorn it; and for the preservation of it, and for the spread of it, and that it might be transmitted to posterity: and it denotes a conflict, a combat, or a fighting for it, a striving even to an agony: the persons to be contended with on account of it, are such who deny, or depreciate any of the Persons in the Godhead, the assertors of the purity and power of human nature, and the deniers of sovereign, efficacious, and persevering grace: the persons who are to contend with them are all the saints in general, to whom it is delivered; which they may do by bearing an experimental testimony to it, by praying for the continuance and success of it, by standing fast in one spirit in it, and by dying for it; and particularly the ministers of the Gospel, by preaching it boldly, openly, fully, and faithfully, by disputing for it, and writing in the defence of it, and by laying down their lives, when called for: the manner in which this is to be done, is "earnestly", heartily, in good earnest, and without deceit, zealously, and constantly.

 

[DHK]

Does Scripture teach that apostleship was restricted to the first century church?

Absolutely. They died by the end of the first century. C'mon, this is a no-brainer.

No. Are there apostles today? I certainly believe that it is the agenda of the Holy Spirit to bring them forth before the coming of the Lord. However, there is considerable debate as to whether those with an "apostolic anointing" today are in the office of an apostle. I am open to the possibility that they are.

Ephesians 4:11-16 strongly suggests that apostles are essential "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ". This statement pertains not only to the apostolic but also to the ministries of prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher (or pastor-teacher), all of which I expect to see functioning fully before the coming of the Lord.

You have two problems with your interpretation of this verse.
First you fail to recognize context--the assembly or church at Ephesus, a first century church when the Apostolic Age had not yet ended.
Secondly, the Apostles and prophets were already there, were already "given." God "gave."
In addition, Eph.2:20 teaches that the apostles and prophets make up the foundation of every local church, along with Christ being the chief cornerstone. Therefore they could not be for today.

There is no universal church, an assumption you make in your interpretation of this verse. It was directed at the church of Ephesus. From that we can make practical applications.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you are saying Jesus can not call others as he did Paul? How and by what authority does anyone have to claim this...especially if it does not say so in scripture!

WHAt would modern Apostles have to do then? the canon is firmly closed, and God will not be adding additional revealtion to us, or do you think he has been in the Charasamtic Movement granting us extra revelations for the church?

Or do you see as being modern day apostles/prophets?

 

[awaken]

Go through the authors of the NT. Who are they--one by one.
They are either apostles or close associates of the apostles?
The ones who were not apostles--where did they get their information--the apostles!

Does it say where they got there information? Is this going to be one of those times where your opinion is going to step in and say what the word does not!

Furthermore what does Scripture tell us about this matter:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
--Jesus was speaking to His apostles here. There is no one, not you, not anyone alive today that can claim this promise. Has the Holy Spirit led you into ALL TRUTH? Are you going to make a claim to omniscience here, as some unwisely do? Do you have all the truth there is to have? Is that what it is teaching?
Of course not! It is a promise specific to the Apostles, that the Holy Spirit would bring back to their memories all the truth that Christ had taught them. He would lead them in all truth, in order that they would be able to write all of God's truth down for us to have throughout all ages. Christ is promising the apostles, the writers of the NT, that the Spirit would give them the words of Scripture, His words. "All Truth" refers to the exact words of Christ, plus the words that God wants in the pages of His Word. Whatever the Spirit would speak to them would be inspired of God, and He would show them things to come. He does not do that today.

I do not know where you get that the Holy Spirit is not for us today! Yes! THe Holy Spirit guides me into all truth! Do I understand all truth? NO! But that does not disprove one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit! Are you saying the Holy Spirit does not lead us today?

2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Here Peter stresses to his reader that he has something to tell them that is very important. Put in your minds. Remember it. Be mindful of the WORDS spoken:
First by the prophets (authors of the OT).
Second, by "us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.
--He tells us that the authors of the Scripture are the prophets and apostles. He tells us to remember that and be mindful of these words spoken by them.

I am sorry that the Holy Spirit is not guiding you into truth! But He guides me and does bring to my memory what I need to say and who I need to say it to!

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Here in the same chapter, in verse three he starts speaking about "ignorant scoffers."
In verse 15 he refers to the writings of Paul, and in verse 16 he refers to them as Scripture, some of which is hard to understand. But those that are unlearned take these Scriptures and other Scriptures (being unlearned and unstable) and wrest them to their own destruction (spiritual destruction). This would describe much of the Charismatic movement if you study what goes on within their ranks.

It is worth noting here that Peter knew which of Paul's writings were Scripture and which were not.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
--Look at this tremendous experience that Peter describes. He describes the experience that he had on the Mount of Transfiguration, when he saw Christ glorified, and a voice come booming out of heaven saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." He saw Elijah and Moses there. There is no greater experience that a person could have then that one. And yet after all of that, what does Peter conclude:

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
--We have God's Word, and God's Word is greater than any experience you may have. You may think you have the greatest mountain top experience ever (You can't beat mine), but the Word of God is more reliable, greater, surer, then that. You do well to take heed to God's Word as a light that shines in a dark place..."
His emphasis was not on experience but on the Word, a lesson that Charismatics should quickly learn.

Jude wrote about 70 A.D. Apart from the writings of John he was one of the last to write. What does he say:
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--There were many things Jude could have written. He could have told us of the childhood of Jesus. But he didn't. The Holy Spirit directed him to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
--The faith is that body of doctrine which we as Christians believe today. They already had it then. There was very little to be added. All of Paul's epistles and the three synoptic gospels had already been written. They had the faith; they were to contend for it. It was the body of doctrine that was delivered to them by the Apostles. Both Peter and Paul had been martyred by the time this was written.

"once delivered to the saints" John Gill eloquently comments on this phrase:

None of this proves you have to be an author of the Bible to be an apostle!
As I stated before...
Basing the finality of the canon on the cessation of apostleship is disastrous. How can the absence of apostles guarantee the closing of the canon when non-apostles wrote Scripture? Such a view would require us to assert, absurdly, that as long as there are non-apostolic Christians the canon is open!