The Narrow Path Ministries

Is the office of apostle open to be filled today or is this an office that has died out?

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ... (Ephesians 4:11-13 NKJV)

Have we ALL come to the unity of the faith? Have we all come to the unity of the knowledge of the Son of God? Have we all come to perfection yet? Have we all come to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ? If the answer is "No," then the ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers, continues.

Having said this, I must also affirm that the number of people in our day who CLAIM to be apostles, but are not, is rampant. Such was the case even in the early church:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. (2Corinthians 11:13)

I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. (Revelation 2:2)

I agree with Paidion. And Jaydam, I imagine you would find AW Tozer's mindset on this to be helpful. Trouble is, I can't think of something of his I've listened to that speaks to it directly. His sermons aren't difficult to find online though.

Grace and peace to you man.

Thanks guys, so if the office of apostle is open, then who recognizes people as being an apostle?

Is it a church to church thing? Should it be a believer wide recognition?

Do you guys have examples of people who can claim apostolic authority over the church today? (obviously not in the catholic idea)

Do you guys have examples of people who can claim apostolic authority over the church today? (obviously not in the catholic idea)

But isn't "in the Catholic idea" just as valid as any other idea we might come up with? I thought an Apostle (capital "A") was someone who had personally seen and been chosen by Christ. And if those are around, wouldn't we be receiving new or additional revelation?

That there are many apostles, small "a", (someone who is sent), we have no reason to doubt.

Homer wrote:But isn't "in the Catholic idea" just as valid as any other idea we might come up with?

I don't see the Catholic idea that apostleship is successive in nature to be supported in scripture. I think in contrast the majority of the evangelical church that believes there are still apostles would see it as an individual, case-by-case anointing rather than a succession.

Homer wrote:I thought an Apostle (capital "A") was someone who had personally seen and been chosen by Christ. And if those are around, wouldn't we be receiving new or additional revelation?

So, do you believe that a requirement of a modern day "A"postle would include having to give new or additional revelation? They could not be seen as an Apostle unless they performed that task?

Could someone be a capitol-A Apostle, yet not give new or additional revelation? Of the 12 Apostles that we see going into Acts 2, how many of them are actually credited with doing this?

Homer wrote:That there are many apostles, small "a", (someone who is sent), we have no reason to doubt.

I'm asking regarding the office, not just the ability for anybody to function as a sent one as God may find a way to use them.

I don't see the Catholic idea that apostleship is successive in nature to be supported in scripture.

Neither do I. But if we say their (catholic) view is invalid, on what biblical grounds would we say a person is a legitimate "A"postle? Jesus personally picked the twelve and then Paul. And when Matthias was chosen (Acts 2), the inspired Apostle Peter listed as qualifications that the person should have been with Jesus "all the time", from John the Baptist, and also a witness of the resurrected Lord. So how would we know whether a person was an "A"postle, selected by Jesus?

So, do you believe that a requirement of a modern day "A"postle would include having to give new or additional revelation? They could not be seen as an Apostle unless they performed that task?

Not required, but I would think it would be expected, given the issues that come up through the years and divisiveness.

Could someone be a capitol-A Apostle, yet not give new or additional revelation? Of the 12 Apostles that we see going into Acts 2, how many of them are actually credited with doing this?

We do not know how many of them were part of the great decisions that confronted the early church, such as the momentous council at Jerusalem.

Homer, you wrote:I thought an Apostle (capital "A") was someone who had personally seen and been chosen by Christ.

Homer, what do you mean by capital "A" Apostles? Do you find any such mentioned in the New Testament? Or is this a designation which you have invented to describe a particular subset of apostles? Early copyists of the NT manuscripts (the originals do not exist) copied these manuscripts ALL IN CAPITALS.
So there seems to be no differentation between "Apostle" and "apostle" in the New Testament.

There seem to have been several in NT times among the apostles who had not seen Jesus while He walked this earth as a man:

1. Paul was one of them. Yes, Paul had seen a vision of Christ, but had not seen Him during His humanity.
2. There is no record of Barnabas having seen Jesus. Yet he is called an apostle in Acts 14:14.
3. It seems that Andronicus and Junias may have been apostles (Rom. 16:7), though this is debatable.
The passage seems to read that these two were "notable in (or among) the apostles". The problem is that that though the primary meaning of that little Greek preposition "εν", is "in", it can also mean "by".

By the way, the Eastern Orthodox Church regards Clement of Rome as having been an apostle. I am not sure whether or not any of the second or third century writers regarded him as such.

Homer wrote:Neither do I. But if we say their (catholic) view is invalid, on what biblical grounds would we say a person is a legitimate "A"postle? Jesus personally picked the twelve and then Paul. And when Matthias was chosen (Acts 2), the inspired Apostle Peter listed as qualifications that the person should have been with Jesus "all the time", from John the Baptist, and also a witness of the resurrected Lord. So how would we know whether a person was an "A"postle, selected by Jesus

It seems that Paul left the door open in Ephesians 4:11 to a general acceptance of apostles existing next to other offices. From his language it does not seem Paul leaves the number of apostles at 12 + Paul + Christ, but perceives there to be more.

I agree, Jaydam. Let's consider Homer's question:"So how would we know whether a person was an "A"postle, selected by Jesus?"
Perhaps the apostle Paul answered that question:

The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. (2Cor 12:12ESV)