Hi K.R.,
Here's another interesting topic.
The question of apostleship has always been an interesting one to me.
Now you mention a term here that I have found nowhere in Scripture: "foundational apostles". Of course those apostles laid the original foundation, but that doesn't mean that the foundation may not need to be "reset" from time to time when Christians depart from the original foundation.
Here's what I mean by that...
It's been nearly 2000 years since the New Testament was written. Initially, we had the apostles to help set the foundation. The preached and taught, and the churches of God grew in number. Then they passed away.
Even during the earliest times in the Church, there were false doctrines and false teachers. We can find this occurring even in the New Testament, where there are numerous examples recorded of false doctrines and heresies in the Church.
However, they left behind a record in the form of the New Testament Scriptures. I believe Peter mentioned that they would do this in 2 Peter 1:15, "And I will also be diligent to cause you to always have memory of these things after my departure." (He was speaking of leaving something behind so that they would remember the things taught by Peter and the other apostles after he died.)
The apostles also trained men to follow after them. Some of the early church fathers claimed to have been the disciples of the apostles, or the disciples of their disciples. But again, false doctrine and heresy crept into the early church fathers.
Now it has been almost 2000 years. Heresies, false doctrines, false teachers, false prophets, and false messiahs have popped out all over the place. Denominations have put division in the Church which both Jesus and Paul warned us against.
All this seems strange to me if Scripture is so easy to understand. If it is so easy, then why all the confusion?
(I'm sure some of you might pop up and say that Scripture isn't difficult to understand and you understand it just fine. The same can be said of people that believe in just about every contradictory doctrine from Scripture we have today. I feel I understand it, but like the rest of you, I'm probably wrong on some doctrine or other in Scripture.)
Now the apostles were originally sent to build that foundation of the Gospel through Jesus. As time has gone on though, that foundation has worn down a bit. It's not that it wasn't perfect, but that it has been attacked to the point that confusion seems to reign in the Church today. (Please don't take the analogy too far--I know Christ is perfect and never wear down. I'm speaking of the presentation of the Gospel and doctrine which is mixed with falsehood.)
So why is there not a need for apostles to bring us back to the original foundation, and to repair it and re-establish the words of Scripture as they were meant to be understood?
God sent the original apostles for that same purpose. Most of their writings seem to have been spent rooting out the false doctrine and heresy in the early church, and establishing the truth as clearly and carefully as possible. We could certainly use some true apostles today.
What is an apostle? An apostle is "a delegate, a messenger, he that is sent, an ambassador". Jesus appointed Twelve delegates to build a foundation for His Church. The meaning of a Christian apostle then is deeper than its secular Greek meaning. They were ambassadors of the Gospel that had a great measure of many of the gifts of the Spirit.
A common belief is that one must have seen Jesus and been present during the whole of His ministry on Earth in order to be an apostle. This is not true. Yes, that is the standard that Peter suggested in Acts 1:21-22, yet Paul was an apostle and he did not fit that profile. The standard that Peter suggested was a good one, but wasn't a limitation on who could be an apostle of Christ.
There were more than just thirteen or fourteen apostles in Scripture:
There were the Twelve.
Then Matthias was added after Judas committed suicide.
Then there was Paul, who was chosen directly by Jesus.
Then we see in Acts 14:14 that Barnabas was an apostle.
Then there are Andronicus and Junia in Romans 16:7.
Based upon Paul's apostleship, there's no particular reason that anyone could not be an apostle if Jesus has chosen them.
Here are my answers to your numbered questions:
(1) No. That is, no distinction among apostles of Christ. However, there would be a distinction in the meaning of the word apostle as used secularly or among Christians.
(2) Apostle (in the Christian sense) -- A person who is sent by Jesus to perform the task of setting a "foundation" of right understanding and starting churches. (I'm not limiting it to these, but these seem to be most prominent.)
(3) Yes. That goes without saying. If Jesus has sent them, then the words He has given them are of the same glory as the ones He gave His first apostles. Those are God's words, not man's.
(4) By not applying to themselves the title of "apostle" they were probably being wise. That's a high hurdle to jump, to claim that one might be an apostle. Unless a person is accompanied by the signs of an apostle, it would be difficult to provide evidence that would convince many. Even Paul was questioned by those he preached to from place to place. Apostles were not universally respected in the world, nor even in the Church in some cases. (There were dissensions about who was a greater apostle, Paul or Apollos, and so forth.) A more important question might be, did any of those church leaders actually FIT the office of apostle? Some, like John Calvin, certainly did not qualify.
That does not mean that nobody could qualify today. Such an opinion is only that, an opinion. Scripture doesn't suggest such a thing, any more than it suggests that polygamy is a sin.
Concerning the men that you quoted, Dr. Wayne Grudem was correct in what he said, but did not state outright that there could be no apostles today. If he did so, then he'd have to have Biblical authority for his claim. He was very accurate in noting that people that made that claim today would be seen as likely prideful and looking for fame. That's why a true apostle would have to truly be an apostle of Christ. Christ would exalt such a man as necessary to the tasks before him.
Dr. Gordon D. Fee was correct as well. Apostles weren't leaders within the local churches. The passages about elders and church leaders having "a wife" indicates for instance that Paul would have been disqualified. Yet he was still an apostle and was the man that wrote those passages. The evidence in the New Testament indicates that the apostle were church-builders, not church leaders. They functioned more as leaders of all Christendom, rather than leaders at the local level. I see Paul subordinating himself at the local level at times, for instance.
Dr. J. Rodman Williams is incorrect, because if a person is actually an apostle of the Lord, then his words are on par with the first apostles. An apostle is an apostle is an apostle. We can't assign levels of value to the truth given by Jesus the Messiah. His words are 100% true at any point. The same applies to any true prophet. If the prophet is speaking what God told him (or her) to say, then it is as important as the words of any other prophet or apostle, from Moses onward.
But again, that doesn't mean that I'd suggest that we believe anyone or everyone that claimed to be an apostle. If an apostle or prophet teaches or speaks the word of God falsely, then they aren't a true apostle or prophet. I would also expect to see a sign of God that they were really an apostle, though I don't think that is absolutely necessary. God will elevate them if they really are an apostle (or prophet), and they will not depart from the teachings of the first apostles or the words of the prophets of Scripture.
John for Christ
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Ali and/or Steve, I have several questions that I am curious in regard to your discussion with Pastor John to how you would respond in light of the apostleship comments. My set of questions are as follows:
1. Are you aware of, or do you see two or so distinct definitions for the term apostle from the original language?
2. If not would you mind defining the term apostle so we can see how you are defining your term?
3. Furthermore, do you think a "modern" apostle can speak a word that has the same weight of authority as say the apostles who wrote the NC writings after Christ's ascension? In other words, can a "modern" apostle in your view be given revelation and/or authority that is as equal in standing and authority to the words as given in the biblical books commonly called the NC scriptures?
4. Lastly, with multiple questions concerning thoughts from the actual writings of Pentecostal and Charismatic thinkers, what do you think about the fact that none of the major leaders in church history until the 1900's ever applied to themselves the term apostle? Clement of Rome, a disciple of Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius, who all three led not only one church but led multiple churches at various times, then Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Beza, Whitfield, Wesley, Edwards, and onward up until the 1900's never used the term apostle for themselves though they certainly founded new works and led over multiple people and other pastor/elders. How would you respond to Dr. Wayne Grudem, who himself affirms all of the spiritual gifts are for today and is one of the most well known Evangelical writers in the field of biblical prophecy and the fivefold offices/gifts of the church, who has said, "Though some may use the word apostle in English today to refer to very effective church planters or evangelists, it seems inappropriate and unhelpful to do so, for it simply confuses people who read the NT and see the high authority that is attributed to the office of apostle there. It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church--not Athanasius, or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitfield--has taken to himself the title of apostle or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title "apostle" to themselves, they immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than one person should rightfully have" (An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, p. 911). How would you respond to Grudem, a fellow theologian who endorses all of the gifts are for today, who yet sees a distinction in what would qualify one for the office of apostleship? Or even with Dr. Gordon D. Fee, a world renown and highly respected Pentecostal scholar who has written the most and largest volumes on the Spirit in the history of Christendom (God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, a 1,000 page volume covering every text on the Spirit) who also says that there is no "evidence that Paul thought of a local church as having some in it called apostles, who were responsible for its affairs" (1 Corinthians Commentary, p. 620)? In other words, he saw the role of apostles as not one of remaining in the churches to govern once planted but as those who went out working to organize and or plant new works but not staying in them as above and over the elders. And how would you respond to a Dr. J. Rodman Williams, a Ph.D Charismatic scholar from Columbia University, who says any terminology set forth today of a modern apostle must keep the lines clear that "he does not have the authority of a foundational apostle nor are his words equally inspired" (Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, Vol. 3, p. 170)? How would you respond to these views as a representation of solid pentecostal and charismatic biblical scholarship?
I am not pressing a view here but would like to see how you interact with what most consider to be some of the most faithful scholars on those subjects from within the actual Charismatic and Pentecostal fields of theological thought. Do you differ with them, agree with them, or have any support of a better view from any other theologians beyond your own views on these matters?
