Are there Apostles among Pentecostals and are they adding books to Scripture?

[Daniel Marsh]

If there are Apostles and the Canon is open, then it would make sense that they would add books to the Bible to deal with modern problems.

 

[Dave-W]

Where did people get the idea that the main focus of an apostle is to write scripture?

What scripture did Thomas write? Simon Zeolotes? Philip? James (brother of John)? Andrew?

We do not have one scrap of writing from the majority of the 12.

 

[Greg J.]

There aren't any more apostles like these:

The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14, 1984 NIV)

To many the Greek apostolos means (more literally in English) messenger. There are messengers of the gospel today who also have a thorough knowledge of the Bible, know God personally reasonably well, and through whom God does miracles. God probably even instructs that certain individuals today to carry the title of apostle—but they still aren't the kind of apostles in the Revelation verse above.

Even when God carries a person along today by his Spirit to write his words, it does not (and cannot) have the authority and stature of Scripture. Revelation says there is nothing more to add to that book, which, for good reasons, can be applied to all of Scripture.

The existing Bible is applicable for all contemporary problems, although a person may need the help of a God-appointed elder-type to interpret it. Remember that our lives are not meant to be lived apart from the help of the Holy Spirit. God gives us elders when a body of believers has a genuine heart for God.

 

[timewerx]

Apostle Paul wrote the most material from a single author in the New Testament. There's even a confirmation in writing that it is Paul who wrote them.

And I agree with Daniel. Many of the teachings of Paul seem to be situational-culture-region specific and ours is a unique culture, so why stop there?

 

[timewerx]

There aren't any more apostles like these:

The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14, 1984 NIV)

What about Apostle Paul?

 

[Ken Behrens]

Most apostles do not/did not write books. Most books apostles wrote are not in what we call Scripture. Apostles add new works of God to the church.

 

[dqhall]

The Library of Congress contains: "more than 32 million cataloged books and other print materials in 470 languages; more than 61 million manuscripts" - etc. (Wikipedia).

The British library contains 14 million books and a total of about 170 million items.

Are any of these inspired? You might have to look into it yourself. There is some truth in books and God is truth.

 

[sparow]

Apostle Paul wrote the most material from a single author in the New Testament. There's even a confirmation in writing that it is Paul who wrote them.

And I agree with Daniel. Many of the teachings of Paul seem to be situational-culture-region specific and ours is a unique culture, so why stop there?

What made Paul brilliant was his knowledge of scripture; but the prophets of old did not make it up, they did not interpret it from scripture, they received it directly from God; real scripture should read as though the sovereign Lord is speaking; The sovereign Lord speaks in the four Gospels and revelation but not in the epistles or Acts.

 

[ynneb]

Thats a really great question and something I had never considered. I guess some groups might say yes. We know the Mormons claim to have further inspiration with the book of Mormon. The seventh day Adventist have additional writings too that they hold up there with the Bible. We also know that the old and new testament were written over the space of thousands of years, so yes is there a full stop, and who decides anyway? I guess even the Quran is claimed to be God inspired by Muslims.
Fascinating !!!

 

[dqhall]

What made Paul brilliant was his knowledge of scripture; but the prophets of old did not make it up, they did not interpret it from scripture, they received it directly from God; real scripture should read as though the sovereign Lord is speaking; The sovereign Lord speaks in the four Gospels and revelation but not in the epistles or Acts.

I do not know how you can think God wrote Revelation, but not Acts. I think Acts is superior to Revelation.

 

[Theo Book]

If there are Apostles and the Canon is open, then it would make sense that they would add books to the Bible to deal with modern problems.

We are told specifically to neither add to nor take from that which is written.

Nothing wrong with making Commentaries, as long as we do not begin to believe our own philosophy to be equal with scripture.

Remember, the Saints "searched the scripture" daily, whether those things were so. Nothing about searching Commentaries, and/or Philosophies.

 

[sparow]

I do not know how you can think God wrote Revelation, but not Acts. I think Acts is superior to Revelation.

It is not a matter of me thinking this is dealing with facts. It is a fact from verse 1:1 God gave Jesus Christ the Revelation who gave it to His bondman who gives it to us. Revelation is the revelation of the Lord's day. The first verse states that it came from God who is the author of it.

No body really knows who wrote Acts; nowhere does Acts record God speaking, unless one thinks the angel of light was actually Jesus; Acts is not testable against the OT whereas everything in Revelation is an anti-type projected forward from the OT. There is no way of knowing whether Acts is true or false whereas Revelation fits over the Book of Daniel like a glove fits a hand.

I do not know how you can think the Acts of men can be superior to that revealed by God.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If there are Apostles and the Canon is open, then it would make sense that they would add books to the Bible to deal with modern problems.

Many Charismatics, Pentecostals, and others claim direct revelation from God when they state: "The Lord told me. . ." That is a claim of God speaking directly to them, which a dangerous statement to make, IMO, because if they are incorrect in a prophesy, there are to be stoned to death, according to the Bible.

 

[LoveofTruth]

If there are Apostles and the Canon is open, then it would make sense that they would add books to the Bible to deal with modern problems.

There are apostles today, (though different from the ministry of the original 12). They are for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto the perfect man, and so believers aren't tossed about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, .You can see this in Ephesians 4:11-about 14 or so, also included in this list are prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers. And these gifts are after the resurrection. Showing that there are apostles after the resurrection. But the whole body is also needed as they are led by Christ the head of the body read on to verses 15,16.

We read of apostles after the resurrection such as Paul, Barnabas,(Acts 13, and 14) Timotheous and Silvans (Thess)

As far as the scripture being closed. I would agree that no more is to be added. But I am sure that the apostles wrote many things and we do not read of the other apostles writings. It would seem that God only chose ( by faith I believe this) certain writings he led men to write to put in scripture.

To write a letter to a church today is ok, and to give instruction etc, or letters to other brothers etc. But I would not put it on equal plane as scripture.

Still the question is a good one. For i believe (as many do) that there are prophets today who can speak in the Spirit. If they are speaking truth in spirit their words are not to be added to scripture but they carry weight if they are spoken in the Spirit and true. We see the prophets in Corinth were to speak two or three at most as Paul said in 1 Cor 14. But nowhere do we read that their words are to be written down and added to scripture.

If a brother led by God writes a letter to others, and all he writes is true and in the Spirit . It may carry similar weight to scripture but not to be added to it. For example I may write to a brother who is in sin a letter in meekness interacting jim from scripture and use many quotes and show him Gods direction. And that is true and can help him. But I would not add that to scripture. I am sure there were many things said by the apostles that were led by God and we don't have them all put in scripture. We see Peter on pentecost spoke as he was led by the Spirit of God and it reads that he said many other words to them. But we don't have all those words he spoke. God chose only to put certain words in there.

 

[graphite412]

The role of an Apostle is for spreading the gospel to new people groups who have not yet heard the gospel. They lay the foundation of the church in a new region. A few of the apostles of the new testament did indeed write scripture but most of them did not, especially if you factor in the 70 apostles as well. About adding new books to the Bible... The gospel does not change with the times so there is no need to add more scripture to the Bible. The gospel is presented in the New Testament and does not need any new additions, but someone may still write edifying books. The cannon was established by the early church and doesn't need any more new books since the fullness of Revelation has existed since the Pentecost. Having spent a good deal of time in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles, I found that most of the people claiming to be apostles and prophets are charlatans and rogues.

 

[wilts43]

"If there are Apostles and the Canon is open, then it would make sense that they would add books to the Bible to deal with modern problems".

"If there are Apostles"?
Today's "Apostles" are the Bishops of the Church(es) with Apostolic succession. The Apostles directly commissioned by Christ, laid hands on others passing on this commission/authority.

These Apostolic successors (Catholic Bishops) created the canon.... at the councils of Carthage over 350 years into the life of the church.
The same Apostolic authority closed the Canon.
If you accept the creation of the canon by this authority then accept its closure.
-----------------------------
..."it would make sense that they would add books to the Bible to deal with modern problems"

The canon as "family history/library" of the church may be closed. But that does not mean the development of doctrine (by these apostolic successors) is closed.
So doctrinal questions like "The Trinity", "The nature of Christ", "The Canon" were settled by the authority of such Councils right up to the present times. Christ gave real authority to the apostles in general, & to peter in particular, and promised the Spirit would lead them into all truth. This is refected in The catholic Church in papal decrees & encyclicals (circulating epistles).
They are not part of the canon, but they do have apostolic authority directly from Christ, through succession & His guarantee that His church would never fail.
These deal with modern problems. There is therefore not a need for more canon.

The OP seems to presume "A Book" focussed view of christianity.
But Christ didn't write a book! (nor use his carpentry skills to build the printing press so people could have books). What Christ did do was found a church....on Peter (Matt 18:18).
This Church flourished for nearly 400 years before it created The Bible.

 

[LoveofTruth]

"If there are Apostles and the Canon is open, then it would make sense that they would add books to the Bible to deal with modern problems".

"If there are Apostles"?
Today's "Apostles" are the Bishops of the Church(es) with Apostolic succession. The Apostles directly commissioned by Christ, laid hands on others passing on this commission/authority.

These Apostolic successors (Catholic Bishops) created the canon.... at the councils of Carthage over 350 years into the life of the church.
The same Apostolic authority closed the Canon.
If you accept the creation of the canon by this authority then accept its closure.
-----------------------------
..."it would make sense that they would add books to the Bible to deal with modern problems"

The canon as "family history/library" of the church may be closed. But that does not mean the development of doctrine (by these apostolic successors) is closed.
So doctrinal questions like "The Trinity", "The nature of Christ", "The Canon" were settled by the authority of such Councils right up to the present times. Christ gave real authority to the apostles in general, & to peter in particular, and promised the Spirit would lead them into all truth. This is refected in The catholic Church in papal decrees & encyclicals (circulating epistles).
They are not part of the canon, but they do have apostolic authority directly from Christ, through succession & His guarantee that His church would never fail.
These deal with modern problems. There is therefore not a need for more canon.

The OP seems to presume "A Book" focussed view of christianity.
But Christ didn't write a book! (nor use his carpentry skills to build the printing press so people could have books). What Christ did do was found a church....on Peter (Matt 18:18).
This Church flourished for nearly 400 years before it created The Bible.

No Read Galatians 1 Paul was an apostle not of men or by men. This apostolic succession is a fiction, not in s rupture. God gives gifts to men, and apostles are gifts to the church just as prophets evangelist and pastors and teachers are. Eph 4:11

 

[LoveofTruth]

The role of an Apostle is for spreading the gospel to new people groups who have not yet heard the gospel. They lay the foundation of the church in a new region. A few of the apostles of the new testament did indeed write scripture but most of them did not, especially if you factor in the 70 apostles as well. About adding new books to the Bible... The gospel does not change with the times so there is no need to add more scripture to the Bible. The gospel is presented in the New Testament and does not need any new additions, but someone may still write edifying books. The cannon was established by the early church and doesn't need any more new books since the fullness of Revelation has existed since the Pentecost. Having spent a good deal of time in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles, I found that most of the people claiming to be apostles and prophets are charlatans and rogues.

I agree with some of what you say but clarification may help. The 12 apostles had to see the life of Jesus ministry from John until his resurrection. This is why they chose another apostle in Acts to replace Judas, he had to see the entire ministry as well. But the apostles after the resurrection, men like Paul, Barnabas, Tmotheous and Silvans etc, were for the church and they may also be itinerant and local elders as peter was. Peter said he was also an elder ( but he was an apostle 1 Peter 5). Paul was more itinerant not really a local elder. So apostles can also work within a local gathering for a long time, But they may also have itinerant work and start new works.

And while thee are always false apostles and prophets, we must also not throw out all true apostles and prophets with the bad ones.

Paul defined the marks of some false apostles in 2 Cor 11. They exalt themselves, and take of others, bring them into bondage, and smite them on the face ( false authority perhaps) .They can come as ministers of righteousness, and messengers of light)

 

[Winken]

I've made it a practice in my writings to limit "Apostle" to the 12 minus Judas. For the rest, 70 or so, I use "disciple." The original 11+1 faithful Apostles plus the 70 disciples shared the Truth with Jewish folk that Jesus was the Promised Messiah.

Paul shared the Good News that Jesus had appointed him to share it with everyone, minus the rigid requirements of The Law. There is a clear distinction between Law for the Hebrew people group, and Grace for everyone after the Cross. Jesus himself, personally, incorporated and met all the previous legal requirements.

One has to note, however, that those Jews who acknowledged Jesus as The Messiah prior to the Cross and before the ministry of Paul, upon death, will one day be resurrected to enter the Kingdom of God on earth. That is a clear distinction between those who confessed Jesus as Savior after the Cross and who upon death immediately enter Heaven (including us).

Nothing needs to be added to our existing Scripture and will not be. Those who come up with "something else" are in error.

 

[graphite412]

Yes, I did not mention the fact that the bishops where the successors to the apostles, and not all the apostles traveled around. For example, St. James the brother of the Lord was the overseer of Jerusalem and stayed there for quite some as can be read in the book of Acts and Eusebius's history. The 12 apostles and the 70 apostles all knew Jesus before His resurrection and during His preaching before the crucifixion, but there are apostles such as Paul who did not know the Lord during that time who never the less were considered apostles because of their work of ministry.