How is Verification of Apostles done today?
- Thread starter Daniel Marsh
- Start date
- Oct 7, 2018
- 9,656
- 7,869
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
My apologies, you indicated my comments were " riding the line". So I am backing off.
Upvote
0
HatGuy
Some guy in a hat
- Jun 9, 2014
- 1,008
- 786
- Country
- South Africa
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Same way as any of the Eph 4:11 gifts are, really. It has to be a recognised gift by at least someone.
1 Cor 9:2 notes that not all recognised Paul as an apostle to them, but some did.
Usually I find those that go around calling themselves an apostle prophet etc. every chance they get, maybe even adding it as a title, aren't what they claim. But those who are humble and just walk in their gift, others recognise them as an apostle to them, and it seems more the real deal.
As an aside, if Acts 1 is a prescription for what makes an apostle, then I suppose casting lots is the answer to your question. (Which goes to show Acts 1 is not a prescription any more than casting lots is).
Upvote
0
topher694
Go Turtle!
- Jan 29, 2019
- 3,828
- 3,038
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Well said. All 5-fold callings should be about flow and function, meaning your calling should become apparent simply by how you think/minister/act not because of a title on a business card. This is because 5-fold offices are not about a "job" or even a "ministry" there are an extension of how God made us. If one is called to be an apostle he/she will think and behave like an apostle because that is how he/she is wired. Same with all of the 5-fold.
You hit the nail on the head with the Acts 1 comparison too. So often folks like to look at one fraction of one scripture as a requirement for all situations while at the same time ignoring other elements of the exact same scripture and not making them requirements. Truth is there is a difference between "qualifications" (which Paul listed 1 Cor 9) and "requirements" (which he listed in 1 Tim 3 and Titus). When we apply for a job, the job might have certain requirements that all applicants must have, but each applicant has his/her own unique qualifications and it is it is our qualifications that often set us apart and determine if we get the job or not.
Upvote
0
Systematic Theology - Wayne Grudem (a prominent and respected continuist scholar)
1. Apostle. Earlier in this book we saw that the New Testament apostles had a unique kind of authority in the early church: authority to speak and write words which were “words of God” in an absolute sense. To disbelieve or disobey them was to disbelieve or disobey God. The apostles, therefore, had the authority to write words which became words of Scripture. This fact in itself should suggest to us that there was something unique about the office of apostle, and that we would not expect it to continue today, for no one today can add words to the Bible and have them be counted as God’s very words or as part of Scripture.
In addition, the New Testament information on the qualifications of an apostle and the identity of the apostles also leads us to conclude that the office was unique and limited to the first century, and that we are to expect no more apostles today. We shall see this as we ask the following questions: What were the requirements for being an apostle? Who were the apostles? How many apostles were there? And are there apostles today? At the outset it must be made clear that the answers to these questions depend on what one means by the word apostle. Today some people use the word apostle in a very broad sense, to refer to an effective church planter, or to a significant missionary pioneer (“William Carey was an apostle to India,” for example). If we use the word apostle in this broad sense, everyone would agree that there are still apostles today— for there are certainly effective missionaries and church planters today.
The New Testament itself has three verses in which the word apostle (Gk. ἀπόστολος, G693) is used in a broad sense, not to refer to any specific church office, but simply to mean “messenger.” In Philippians 2:25, Paul calls Epaphroditus “your messenger (ἀπόστολος) and minister to my need”; in 2 Corinthians 8:23, Paul refers to those who accompanied the offering that he was taking to Jerusalem as “messengers [ἀπόστολοι from ἀπόστολος (G693)] of the churches”; and in John 13:16, Jesus says, “Nor is he who is sent [ἀπόστολος] greater than he who sent him.”
But there is another sense for the word apostle. Much more frequently in the New Testament the word refers to a special office, “apostle of Jesus Christ.” In this narrow sense of the term, there are no more apostles today, and we are to expect no more. This is because of what the New Testament says about the qualifications for being an apostle and about who the apostles were.
a. Qualifications of an Apostle: The two qualifications for being an apostle were (1) having seen Jesus after his resurrection with one’s own eyes (thus, being an “eyewitness of the resurrection”), and (2) having been specifically commissioned by Christ as his apostle.
The fact that an apostle had to have seen the risen Lord with his own eyes is indicated by Acts 1:22, where Peter said that person to replace Judas “must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” Moreover, it was “to the apostles whom he had chosen” that “he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days” (Acts 1:2–3; cf. 4:33).
Paul makes much of the fact that he did meet this qualification even though it was in an unusual way (Christ appeared to him in a vision on the road to Damascus and appointed him as an apostle: Acts 9:5–6; 26:15–18). When he is defending his apostleship he says, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1). And when recounting the people to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection, Paul says, “Then he appeared to James then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (1 Cor. 15:7–9).
These verses combine to indicate that unless someone had seen Jesus after the resurrection with his own eyes, he could not be an apostle.
The second qualification, specific appointment by Christ as an apostle, is also evident from several verses. First, though the term apostle is not common in the gospels, the twelve disciples are called “apostles” specifically in a context where Jesus is commissioning them, “sending them out” to preach in his name: And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. The names of the twelve apostles are these....These twelve Jesus sent out charging them, “...preach as you go, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”’ (Matt. 10:1–7)
Similarly, Jesus commissions his apostles in a special sense to be his “witnesses...to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). And in choosing another apostle to replace Judas, the eleven apostles did not take the responsibility on themselves, but prayed and asked the ascended Christ to make the appointment:
“Lord, who knows the hearts of all men, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside....” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:24–26)
Paul himself insists that Christ personally appointed him as an apostle. He tells how, on the Damascus Road, Jesus told him that he was appointing him as an apostle to the Gentiles: “I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and to bear witness...delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles—to whom I send you” (Acts 26:16–17). He later affirms that he was specifically appointed by Christ as an apostle (see Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11).
b. Who Were Apostles? The initial group of apostles numbered twelve—the eleven original disciples who remained after Judas died, plus Matthias, who replaced Judas: “And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26). So important was this original group of twelve apostles, the “charter members” of the office of apostle, that we read that their names are inscribed on the foundations of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14).
We might at first think that such a group could never be expanded, that no one could be added to it. But then Paul clearly claims that he, also, is an apostle. And Acts 14:14 calls both Barnabas and Paul apostles: “when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it....” So with Paul and Barnabas there are fourteen “apostles of Jesus Christ.”
Then James the brother of Jesus (who was not one of the twelve original disciples) seems to be called an apostle in Galatians 1:19: Paul tells how, when he went to Jerusalem, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”6 Then in Galatians 2:9 James is classified with Peter and John as “pillars” of the Jerusalem church. And in Acts 15:13–21, James, along with Peter, exercises a significant leadership function in the Jerusalem Council, a function which would be appropriate to the office of apostle. Furthermore, when Paul is listing the resurrection appearances of Jesus he once again readily classifies James with the apostles: Then he appeared to James then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Cor. 15:7–9)
Finally, the fact that James could write the New Testament epistle which bears his name would also be entirely consistent with his having the authority which belonged to the office of apostle, the authority to write words which were the words of God. All these considerations combine to indicate that James the Lord’s brother was also commissioned by Christ as an apostle. That would bring the number to fifteen “apostles of Jesus Christ” (the twelve plus Paul, Barnabas, and James).
Were there more than these fifteen? There may possibly have been a few more, though we know little if anything about them, and it is not certain that there were any more. Others, of course, had seen Jesus after his resurrection (“Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,” 1 Cor. 15:6). From this large group it is possible that Christ appointed some others as apostles—but it is also very possible that he did not. The evidence is not sufficient to decide the issue.
...
It seems that no apostles were appointed after Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today. In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the New Testament. Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolutely authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.
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 New Testament 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 Whitefield—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 any one person should rightfully have.
Footnotes:
Someone may object that Christ could appear to someone today and appoint that person as an apostle. But the foundational nature of the office of apostle (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14) and the fact that Paul views himself as the last one whom Christ appeared to and appointed as an apostle (“last of all, as to one untimely born,” 1 Cor. 15:8), indicate that this will not happen. Moreover, God’s purpose in the history of redemption seems to have been to give apostles only at the beginning of the church age (see Eph. 2:20).
Another objection to the idea that there are no apostles today, one that comes especially from people in the charismatic movement, is the argument that the “fivefold ministry” of Eph. 4:11 should continue today, and we should have (1) apostles, (2) prophets, (3) evangelists, (4) pastors, and (5) teachers, since Paul says that Christ “gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11 NASB). However, Eph. 4:11 talks about a one-time event in the past (note the aorist καὶ ἔδωκεν, from δίδωμι, G1443, “and he gave”), when Christ ascended into heaven (vv. 8–10) and then at Pentecost poured out initial giftings on the church, giving the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers (or pastors and teachers). Whether or not Christ would later give more people for each of these offices cannot be decided from this verse alone but must be decided based on other New Testament teachings on the nature of these offices and whether they were expected to continue. In fact, we see that there were many prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers established by Christ throughout all of the early churches, but there was only one more apostle given after this initial time (Paul, “last of all,” in unusual circumstances on the Damascus Road).
1. Apostle. Earlier in this book we saw that the New Testament apostles had a unique kind of authority in the early church: authority to speak and write words which were “words of God” in an absolute sense. To disbelieve or disobey them was to disbelieve or disobey God. The apostles, therefore, had the authority to write words which became words of Scripture. This fact in itself should suggest to us that there was something unique about the office of apostle, and that we would not expect it to continue today, for no one today can add words to the Bible and have them be counted as God’s very words or as part of Scripture.
In addition, the New Testament information on the qualifications of an apostle and the identity of the apostles also leads us to conclude that the office was unique and limited to the first century, and that we are to expect no more apostles today. We shall see this as we ask the following questions: What were the requirements for being an apostle? Who were the apostles? How many apostles were there? And are there apostles today? At the outset it must be made clear that the answers to these questions depend on what one means by the word apostle. Today some people use the word apostle in a very broad sense, to refer to an effective church planter, or to a significant missionary pioneer (“William Carey was an apostle to India,” for example). If we use the word apostle in this broad sense, everyone would agree that there are still apostles today— for there are certainly effective missionaries and church planters today.
The New Testament itself has three verses in which the word apostle (Gk. ἀπόστολος, G693) is used in a broad sense, not to refer to any specific church office, but simply to mean “messenger.” In Philippians 2:25, Paul calls Epaphroditus “your messenger (ἀπόστολος) and minister to my need”; in 2 Corinthians 8:23, Paul refers to those who accompanied the offering that he was taking to Jerusalem as “messengers [ἀπόστολοι from ἀπόστολος (G693)] of the churches”; and in John 13:16, Jesus says, “Nor is he who is sent [ἀπόστολος] greater than he who sent him.”
But there is another sense for the word apostle. Much more frequently in the New Testament the word refers to a special office, “apostle of Jesus Christ.” In this narrow sense of the term, there are no more apostles today, and we are to expect no more. This is because of what the New Testament says about the qualifications for being an apostle and about who the apostles were.
a. Qualifications of an Apostle: The two qualifications for being an apostle were (1) having seen Jesus after his resurrection with one’s own eyes (thus, being an “eyewitness of the resurrection”), and (2) having been specifically commissioned by Christ as his apostle.
The fact that an apostle had to have seen the risen Lord with his own eyes is indicated by Acts 1:22, where Peter said that person to replace Judas “must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” Moreover, it was “to the apostles whom he had chosen” that “he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days” (Acts 1:2–3; cf. 4:33).
Paul makes much of the fact that he did meet this qualification even though it was in an unusual way (Christ appeared to him in a vision on the road to Damascus and appointed him as an apostle: Acts 9:5–6; 26:15–18). When he is defending his apostleship he says, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1). And when recounting the people to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection, Paul says, “Then he appeared to James then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (1 Cor. 15:7–9).
These verses combine to indicate that unless someone had seen Jesus after the resurrection with his own eyes, he could not be an apostle.
The second qualification, specific appointment by Christ as an apostle, is also evident from several verses. First, though the term apostle is not common in the gospels, the twelve disciples are called “apostles” specifically in a context where Jesus is commissioning them, “sending them out” to preach in his name: And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. The names of the twelve apostles are these....These twelve Jesus sent out charging them, “...preach as you go, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”’ (Matt. 10:1–7)
Similarly, Jesus commissions his apostles in a special sense to be his “witnesses...to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). And in choosing another apostle to replace Judas, the eleven apostles did not take the responsibility on themselves, but prayed and asked the ascended Christ to make the appointment:
“Lord, who knows the hearts of all men, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside....” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:24–26)
Paul himself insists that Christ personally appointed him as an apostle. He tells how, on the Damascus Road, Jesus told him that he was appointing him as an apostle to the Gentiles: “I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and to bear witness...delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles—to whom I send you” (Acts 26:16–17). He later affirms that he was specifically appointed by Christ as an apostle (see Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11).
b. Who Were Apostles? The initial group of apostles numbered twelve—the eleven original disciples who remained after Judas died, plus Matthias, who replaced Judas: “And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26). So important was this original group of twelve apostles, the “charter members” of the office of apostle, that we read that their names are inscribed on the foundations of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14).
We might at first think that such a group could never be expanded, that no one could be added to it. But then Paul clearly claims that he, also, is an apostle. And Acts 14:14 calls both Barnabas and Paul apostles: “when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it....” So with Paul and Barnabas there are fourteen “apostles of Jesus Christ.”
Then James the brother of Jesus (who was not one of the twelve original disciples) seems to be called an apostle in Galatians 1:19: Paul tells how, when he went to Jerusalem, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”6 Then in Galatians 2:9 James is classified with Peter and John as “pillars” of the Jerusalem church. And in Acts 15:13–21, James, along with Peter, exercises a significant leadership function in the Jerusalem Council, a function which would be appropriate to the office of apostle. Furthermore, when Paul is listing the resurrection appearances of Jesus he once again readily classifies James with the apostles: Then he appeared to James then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Cor. 15:7–9)
Finally, the fact that James could write the New Testament epistle which bears his name would also be entirely consistent with his having the authority which belonged to the office of apostle, the authority to write words which were the words of God. All these considerations combine to indicate that James the Lord’s brother was also commissioned by Christ as an apostle. That would bring the number to fifteen “apostles of Jesus Christ” (the twelve plus Paul, Barnabas, and James).
Were there more than these fifteen? There may possibly have been a few more, though we know little if anything about them, and it is not certain that there were any more. Others, of course, had seen Jesus after his resurrection (“Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,” 1 Cor. 15:6). From this large group it is possible that Christ appointed some others as apostles—but it is also very possible that he did not. The evidence is not sufficient to decide the issue.
...
It seems that no apostles were appointed after Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today. In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the New Testament. Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolutely authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.
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 New Testament 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 Whitefield—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 any one person should rightfully have.
Footnotes:
Someone may object that Christ could appear to someone today and appoint that person as an apostle. But the foundational nature of the office of apostle (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14) and the fact that Paul views himself as the last one whom Christ appeared to and appointed as an apostle (“last of all, as to one untimely born,” 1 Cor. 15:8), indicate that this will not happen. Moreover, God’s purpose in the history of redemption seems to have been to give apostles only at the beginning of the church age (see Eph. 2:20).
Another objection to the idea that there are no apostles today, one that comes especially from people in the charismatic movement, is the argument that the “fivefold ministry” of Eph. 4:11 should continue today, and we should have (1) apostles, (2) prophets, (3) evangelists, (4) pastors, and (5) teachers, since Paul says that Christ “gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11 NASB). However, Eph. 4:11 talks about a one-time event in the past (note the aorist καὶ ἔδωκεν, from δίδωμι, G1443, “and he gave”), when Christ ascended into heaven (vv. 8–10) and then at Pentecost poured out initial giftings on the church, giving the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers (or pastors and teachers). Whether or not Christ would later give more people for each of these offices cannot be decided from this verse alone but must be decided based on other New Testament teachings on the nature of these offices and whether they were expected to continue. In fact, we see that there were many prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers established by Christ throughout all of the early churches, but there was only one more apostle given after this initial time (Paul, “last of all,” in unusual circumstances on the Damascus Road).
Upvote
0
- Mar 28, 2005
- 21,813
- 10,794
- 76
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
All New Testament prophecy is a mixture of the Holy Spirit and the person's own thoughts. That is why Paul said that when people prophesy in the churches, others need to judge it. It is not to condemn the person giving the prophecy, but to give correction about the parts that are correct, and which parts can be safely ignored.
As I have previously said, New Testament prophecy does not carry the same absolute authority that Old Testament prophecy did. If it did, it should have been written down and added to the Scripture, but it wasn't, so it was, and is at s lower level of authority. The treasure is in earthen vessels, so with modern prophecy, one has to pick the meat from the bones, test all things in the prophecy, and hold fast to the good bits.
Upvote
0
- Mar 28, 2005
- 21,813
- 10,794
- 76
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
The Apostles of Christ passed into history with the death of the Apostle John. But we have church apostles, because that's what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12. "God has placed in the church apostles, prophets, etc. So in the church there are apostles and prophets for the building up of the Body of Christ. These are to be part of the ministry of the church to believers, and to plant new churches in areas where they are needed. But they don't carry the same criteria that Christ's own Apostles did, and the prophets are not the same as the Old Testament prophets. Modern apostles and prophets have a different function in the Body of Christ.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 28, 2005
- 21,813
- 10,794
- 76
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
But most of Jesus' prophecies were written down and became part of the New Testament. As John said, there were many other things that Jesus did and taught that he could not write down because there wouldn't be enough room for all the books, so there would have been many of Jesus's prophecies that didn't make it to the pages of Holy Scripture. John included the ones that were the most significant for future believers.
Also, because prophecy was widely used around all the churches, then, through church history, and in modern times, all those thousands of prophecies were never written down. If those prophecies were equivalent to Scripture, they should have been recorded and added to the New Testament. But they were never "Thus says the Lord" prophecies, because they didn't have the same direct authority that Old Testament ones did.
Still, the modern gift of prophecy can show the love and grace of God as the Holy Spirit reveals the wonders of His nature to us, and there are modern predictive prophecies that come to pass. There is no doubt about that. But we can't accept a prophecy as direct guidance until it has been evaluated with consultation with the written Scriptures. Modern prophecy is not Scripture, but it has to be in harmony with the Scriptures. If someone gave a prophecy to me saying "God has told me this for you", I would say, "I will wait until God tells me directly from the Holy Spirit within me before I accept what you are saying."
Upvote
0
HatGuy
Some guy in a hat
- Jun 9, 2014
- 1,008
- 786
- Country
- South Africa
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Thanks for this.
While there are some points of agreement, I disagree with Grudem on several counts here.
1. "Apostle" is a function, not a title or a position. ("Paul... an apostle, sent by Christ...", not "Apostle Paul". He never refers to himself as the latter.) Grudem might agree with this in principle, but it works against this idea that an apostle could *only* be one who saw Christ.
2. Grudem seems to have missed that Timothy was also part of writing scripture - 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1. Silvanus (Silas) is included as part of this team in 1 Thess 1.
3. Likewise, we accept a book as authoritative when we don't even know who the author is! (Hebrews.)
4. All this shows that the authority to write the words of God was either (a) not just for the apostles, or (b) that Timothy and Silas must be counted as apostles.
5. If Timothy and Silas are counted as apostles, then Grudem needs to show how Timothy had seen the resurrected Lord somehow. So far as we know, that cannot be proven. Paul meets Timothy in Lystra in Acts 16. He seems to be young. Unless he and his family were somehow in Jerusalem at the time, this all seems doubtful to me.
6. If he concedes that point and then says Timothy was not an apostle, he needs to explain how it is that Timothy had a part to play in the writing of scripture. For that matter, he also does need to explain Hebrews. With this in mind, some of Grudem's definitions of an apostle needs to change, and with these changes we can quite safely affirm that the role of an apostle, as stated in Ephesians 4, is not a one-time event (despite the aorist sense - he also 'gave' the Spirit, but yet also gives the Spirit today, does He not?) but was an initial / starting event that continues to this day. Since Christ is still ascended, the ascension gifts still apply.
Upvote
0
Just because Paul includes Timothy in his opening greetings in his letters to the Corinthians, Philippians and Thessalonians doesn't mean that Timothy had a hand in writing those epistles. I'm pretty sure there is not a single commentary of any of those epistles that suggests anyone other than Paul was the author.
Upvote
0
HatGuy
Some guy in a hat
- Jun 9, 2014
- 1,008
- 786
- Country
- South Africa
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
But what proof would you or any commentator have to make this statement?
I mean, think about it for a sec. Paul is sending out a letter from him and Timothy, and you think Timothy did not at the very least read the letter and agree with its contents? Did he not have any say in its contents? That at the very least classifies him as a co-author.
Or was Paul's apostleship dictatorial in some way? If it was, why would he even bother listing these other names in the beginning of these letters? Or is it not more likely, given the heart of Paul displayed in these letters, and given the introductions to some of them, that it was a team effort?
This view actually solves a number of problems of authenticity and is a more plausible explanation for the almost-Pauline style of Hebrews.
Not to mention Tertius who also acted as a scribe. And Silas' scribing for Peter. Even if they only acted as editors, that would still indicate a hand in writing scripture that is not of the apostles (depending if one views these other guys as apostles or not).
There is a growing scholarship view, by the way, that indicates these NT writings were a team effort.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
If the people listed in the opening verse of the epistles are all co-authors then Galatians must have been written by some 50 or so people. It is addressed as being from Paul and "all the brothers who are with me". It was written when Paul was leading the church at Ephesus. Did they all write a few verses of scripture each? Of course not. It was just Paul's style to include his present company in his opening address. He may have read out his letter to them before it was sent, and they may have even given their assent, but Paul's epistles were written only by Paul.
Upvote
0
HatGuy
Some guy in a hat
- Jun 9, 2014
- 1,008
- 786
- Country
- South Africa
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't really see a problem with this theoretically.
Of course, 50 people is an assumption.
A look at Paul's ministry shows that he was the leader of an apostolic team. Timothy, Silas, and Barnabas (at least at a point) appear to be part of this team. Galatians probably then shows that the letter came from him and his team.
It would seem rather odd to send a letter from whoever is with you geographically, but perfect sense to send a letter from your team.
The reality of team means that Paul didn't develop his theology in a vacuum, his authority came from the team's recognition of his leadership, and that our NT scriptures from Paul were written, in some way or form, not by just an individual but by a team of early Christians.
The writing process has always included collaborators of various degrees and forms. A writer today has editors, proofreaders, even ghostwriters, who all contribute to the content in some form and their contributions make it into the final publication.
There is no reason to think Paul's letter-writing did not include a process that included others, especially when one does some research on how writing was done in those days with scribes etc.
The only reason to want to see Paul as the sole author of these NT books is to try attach a particular authority to Paul that to be quite honest doesn't come across to me as biblical. Some people honestly make him out to be some sort of superhuman and God's sole man for the hour. Even Paul spoke against "super apostles". Evangelicals, in particular, place Paul on such a pedestal that I think he would feel rightly embarrassed.
The need to see scripture as written by only a handful of apostles has for me always seemed to be weird. The letters themselves don't indicate this. A lot of assumptions are made merely to prove that the qualifications for an apostle in Acts 1 was to stand for all time (an idea refuted not only by their casting of lots to fill the space, and by seeing who wrote NT scripture, but also refuted by Eph 4:11 anyway).
At any rate, even if you and Grudem are right, how do you explain Hebrews? What gives a book who we don't know the author of so much authority?
Upvote
0
Gal 1:1 doesn't say Paul and "his team", it clearly says Paul and "all the brothers who are with me". That would be all the Christians with Paul at Ephesus. If the first verse of Paul's epistles is a list of co-authors then the whole church had a hand in writing Galatians. That's most unlikely. I see no evidence that anyone other than Paul wrote Paul's epistles.
Although the author of Hebrews is uncertain, there is more evidence to link it to Paul than any other individual. Unless it can be conclusively proved to be written by a non-apostle, I don't see what bearing it has on this debate.
Upvote
0
HatGuy
Some guy in a hat
- Jun 9, 2014
- 1,008
- 786
- Country
- South Africa
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
We don't know who wrote it, but yet we must somehow prove it wasn't an apostle? How does that work?
Well anyway, I've outlined an alternative view. May the Lord guide us into all truth.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ARBITER01
Legend
- Aug 12, 2007
- 13,361
- 1,698
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Republican
Absolutely not.
When a person has a corporate speaking ministry, it is by Holy Spirit utterance, you and your mind are not to be involved in the message.
When a tongues, interpretation, or gift of prophesying message is given correctly, there will be a tangible edification to your spirit during the message, and the peace of The Holy Spirit will drop down in the congregation verifying it was Him.
Without that edification and peace happening from The Holy Spirit during the message, it was just the person speaking by their own spirit, or worse yet, an evil spirit.
Upvote
0
