There was indeed a finality to them, and there seemed to be something special about the number. Judas was replaced, but there is no hint that anybody else was ever included in this number after that. Note that their role clearly was NOT just to write Scripture. If so most of them failed in this task. Their role was instead to make disciples, which they fulfilled by planting churches.
But it does not seem to be the case that they always spoke with authority, or were considered infallible. So for example, Paul who was never viewed as one of the Twelve felt at liberty to rebuke Peter. Paul: He deserves a class all on his own. Interestingly, he seems to share some of the characteristics of the Twelve, and some of the next group. He is in many ways an archetype of the church planting apostle, often referred to today by the latin translation of this world apostollos: missionary.
Oddly people are happy to refer to people today as missionaries, but not by the Greek equivalent, apostles! Apostles of the Risen Christ This lesser group, are those that Jesus appointed after he had risen from the dead Ephesians 4. Many would probably correctly argue that Paul was the first of this group, as well as in a sense being the last of the tighter group whcih really consisted of the Twelve plus Paul.
What did apostles do in the NT? They planted churches, laying a firm foundation. It is this foundation laying work in individual churches that many charismatics believe apostles do today. They act in a fatherly way pastoring pastors, and excecrising informal leadership that goes beyond their local church, and is dependent on a clearly recognised anointing on them. Charismatics believe that God has always given his church these apostolic figures, even though many of them would never want to use the name of themselves.
After all, a foundation is not something that can be rebuilt during every phase of construction. The foundation is unique, and it is always laid first, with the rest of the structure resting firmly above it.
We would acknowledge that there is no need for such foundation laying of the universal church, but that individual bodies of believers do indeed need a derivative foundation to be laid in them.
Indeed apostles today are simply pointing us back to apostolic doctrine. In conclusion, some of us charismatics believe that this passage should be taken literally, including its description of when apostles stop.
Just like in 1 Corinthians 13, we believe the Bible DOES teach cessationism, just that it also determines when that cessation will occur, and that date is still some way off it would appear! Perhaps some see us as a little bit simple and lacking the sophistication needed to see that these passages are not meant to be taken at face value.
We would rather simply try and follow them as they seem to us to be clearly written:. And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evange- lists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 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 fullness of Christ.
Get newsletters and updates Close. Also, send me the Evangelical Newsletter and special offers. Also, send me the Evangelical Newsletter. Toggle navigation. Are there apostles today? November 6, by Adrian Warnock. November 6, Adrian Warnock Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality!
Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world. Previous Post. Next Post. Browse Our Archives. You will also receive special offers from our partners that help make this content free for you.
You can opt out at any time. Yes, I want the Patheos Evangelical Newsletter as well. Should Couples and Their Pastor Reject The Word of God is our authoritative rule for faith and practice—meaning that it is perfectly sufficient for teaching sound doctrine and governing right living.
Certainly, an orthodox pneumatology fits under that umbrella. On the one hand, I would agree that this is a second-level doctrinal issue—meaning that someone can be either a continuationist or a cessationist and still be a genuine follower of Jesus Christ. I have always maintained that position, and I reiterated that point several times during the conference. I have good friends who consider themselves continuationists, and I am confident that these men are fellow brothers in Christ.
In fact, I would appeal to my continuationist brethren to reconsider their views in light of what Scripture teaches.
In such cases, it becomes a primary issue. For example, charismatic theology does corrupt the gospel when it expresses itself in the form of the prosperity gospel. Moreover, the global charismatic movement happily shelters other heretical movements—such as Catholic Charismatics and Oneness Pentecostals. Taken together, the number of charismatics who hold to a false form of the gospel whether it is a gospel of health and wealth or a gospel of works righteousness number in the hundreds of millions, which means they actually represent the majority of the global charismatic movement.
That is why we took such a strong stand both at the conference and in the book. Tim: You noted that you see this issue clearly resolved in Scripture. Can you explain, briefly, the biblical case for cessationism?
MacArthur: The full answer to this question would require a lengthy response; and I spend several chapters in the book making the case. I find it helpful to shape the case for cessationism around three questions: What? First, what were the miraculous and revelatory gifts like apostleship, prophecy, tongues, and healing according to the Word of God? Scripture gives us a clear description. But when we compare that biblical description with the modern charismatic movement, we find that the latter falls far short.
Though charismatics use biblical terminology to describe their contemporary experiences, nothing about the modern charismatic gifts matches the biblical reality. The book of Acts depicts the gift of tongues as producing real human languages Acts —11 , and nothing in 1 Corinthians redefines tongues as irrational babble.
And the New Testament further describes the miraculous healings of Jesus and the Apostles including the healing of organic diseases like paralysis, blindness, and leprosy as being immediate, complete, and undeniable cf.
Mark ; ; etc. These, and many other Scripture passages, demonstrate the truly extraordinary quality of the biblical gifts. But here is the point. The modern gifts of the charismatic movement simply do not match up to their biblical counterparts. Modern prophecy is fallible and full of errors. Modern tongues consists of unintelligible speech that does not conform to any human language.
Modern healings do not compare to the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles. Amazingly, leading continuationists readily acknowledge this fact. Wayne Grudem, for example, agrees that apostleship has ceased.
He further argues for a modern version of prophecy that is fallible and frequently characterized by mistakes. Sam Storms has a whole article attempting to justify the idea that modern tongues do not have to be real human languages.
And in a recent interview, John Piper acknowledges that there was something unique and unrepeatable about the healing miracles of Christ. But I do deny the notion that those experiences match what the Bible describes as the miraculous and revelatory gifts of the New Testament.
There is nothing extraordinary about fallible prophecy, irrational tongues, or failed healings. While I recognize that sometimes God providentially chooses to heal people through answered prayer, those occurrences are not at all the same thing as the New Testament gift of healing. Second, when did the gifts cease? Before the canon of Scripture was complete, that foundation was still being laid through the apostles and prophets, and through the miraculous and revelatory gifts that accompanied and authenticated their ministries.
But once the foundation was laid, those offices and gifts passed away. It is laid only once. Many reformed continuationists including Wayne Grudem readily acknowledge that apostleship has ceased. So even they admit that one of the most significant elements listed in both 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 has passed away. So, at that level at least, they are cessationists. Finally, we must look to the purpose of the gifts—why they were given.
After the apostolic age passed, with the foundation of the church laid and the canon of Scripture closed, such attestation was no longer required. As Peter explains, the prophetic word is even more sure than the most extraordinary of eye-witness experiences 2 Pet — Now, I realize there are disputes over some of those passages. But that is the very discussion I want to spark in the evangelical community.
I should add that we address these and other passages in much greater depth in the Strange Fire book. Not that anyone would want to count, but the Scripture index includes nearly biblical references. Tim: You acknowledge, of course, that many godly, respected theologians are continuationists.
How would you explain the continuationist theology of faithful men like John Piper, D. Carson, and Wayne Grudem if the cessationist position is so clearly taught in the Bible? MacArthur: First, let me reiterate how much I do appreciate those men. As I explain in the book, I am truly grateful for the extensive contributions they have made to the truth and life of the church. I have personally benefited from my interactions with each of them, and from the many helpful books they have authored. I love these men as coworkers in the ministry of the gospel, and I thank the Lord for giving them as gifts to the church in this generation.
As I noted at the conference, I believe their openness to modern charismatic gifts is an anomaly. Obviously, I cannot read minds nor do I desire to judge motives. But I do wonder if perhaps their positions are evidence of either the influence of personal relationships with charismatic friends and family members, or the pervasive impact charismatic theology has had on the wider culture.
Wayne Grudem, as I mentioned earlier, openly acknowledges that there are no apostles in the church today. John Piper says that he does not speak in tongues. Carson does not personally practice any of the charismatic gifts. In that sense, then, I think they may be more cessationist in terms of their personal practice than their published positions would suggest.
My major concern is that their openness to the issue unwittingly gives the whole movement an aura of theological credibility that it does not deserve. At the very least, I hope they will join with us in drawing a clear line in the sand and condemning the aberrations and excesses of the broader charismatic movement.
Excluding the obviously and patently unbiblical, extreme charismatics such as Benny Hinn, what is the damage that may be done as a result of reformed, continuationist preaching and practice? MacArthur: This is a question we directly address in chapter 12 of the book—identifying eight dangerous ramifications of holding to a continuationist position.
First, I am concerned that reformed continuationists provide theological cover for the broader movement—including those who are not nearly as careful as they are.
In using biblical terminology to describe something other than the biblical phenomena, continuationists unwittingly provide cover for charlatans and deceivers who use their arguments to propagate falsehood and justify abuses.
Let me give one quick example of that. I remember meeting with a charismatic prophet in my office several years ago—a man who has since been publicly discredited as a drunken, immoral fraud. But at the time, he was considered one of the foremost of the Kansas City Prophets. And he had come, along with another continuationist leader, in order to convince me that he was a true prophet. It was a strange meeting.
His behavior was extremely bizarre. But the other leader defended him, insisting that this was how he acted when he was under the power of the Spirit. So we asked this other continuationist leader why he believed this man to be a true prophet when he acted so strangely, and when so many of his so-called revelations were wrong and full of errors. Examples like that illustrate the problem. Albeit unintentionally, reformed continuationists are providing a defense for people far less-noble or ethical than they are.
In that sense, they are holding the gates open for the Trojan horse of aberrant theology and spiritual abuse that runs rampant in the broader charismatic world.
0コメント