Reprise: Are There Apostles in the Church Today? - by Nathan Busenitz

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

Mr. Busenitz attempts to answer the question without quoting a single Bible verse. Not one. He does cite a number of Bible references and summarizes the contents of some of them. He also quotes theologians and historical figures, sometimes at length. 

But he never quotes the Bible. Astonishing.

We discuss the apostles in great detail here.

--------------------

Are there apostles in the church today?

Just ask your average fan of TBN, many of whom consider popular televangelists like Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, and Joel Osteen to be apostles. (Here’s one such example [see page 22].)

Or, you could ask folks like Gerald, Ricardo, Arsenio, Charlezetta, or Richard. They not only believe in modern-day apostleship, they assert themselves to be apostles.

A quick Google search reveals that self-proclaimed apostles abound online. Armed with a charismatic pneumatology and often an air of spiritual ambition, they put themselves on par with the earliest leaders of the church.

So what are Bible-believing Christians to think about all of this?

Well, that brings us back to the title of our post:

Are there still apostles in the church today?

At the outset, we should note that by “apostles” we do not simply mean “sent ones” in the general sense. Rather, we are speaking of those select individuals directly appointed and authorized by Jesus Christ to be His immediate representatives on earth. In this sense, we are speaking of “capital A” apostles – such as the Twelve and the apostle Paul. (Right out of the gate Mr. Busenitz dishonestly loads the equation to his favor. He wants to know if there are any other (A)postles besides the (A)postles, which is a tautology. He proclaims criteria that definitionally excludes anyone else besides the Twelve and the apostle Paul.)

It is these type of “apostles” that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11 and in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30. (Mr. Busenitz makes a claim that these Bible references are all talking about the the Twelve and the apostle Paul. But that's the matter to be demonstrated. Are these Bible references referring to the Twelve and the apostle Paul? Let's quote them:

Ep. 2:19-20 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Ep. 3:4-5 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 

Ep. 4:11-13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.

1Co. 12:28-31 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts. 

With the verses before us we can see that the first two citations make very specific claims, that these apostles are the ones upon which Christ built his church, and to whom were revealed the mystery of Christ. 

But the second two are different. In Ephesians 4, these apostles, in concert with others, build the church in faith and knowledge, working to bring maturity to the saints. And in 1 Corinthians we find spiritual gifts, which can be eagerly desired [1Cor. 14:1]. And notice these gifts are allocated along with other, perhaps less "spectacular" gifts.

Mr. Busenitz lumps these references together as if there is no distinction. And the fact that he doesn't quote them tells us his attitude.)

This is important because, especially in Ephesians 4 and in 1 Corinthians 12–14, Paul references apostleship within the context of the charismatic gifts. If “apostleship” has ceased, it gives us grounds to consider the possibility that other offices/gifts have ceased as well. If the apostles were unique, and the period in which they ministered was unique, then it follows that the gifts that characterized the apostolic age were also unique. (Hmm. If apostles can be postulated to have ceased, then the same could be said for evangelists, pastors and teachers. The same could be said for those able to help others, and those with gifts of administration. 

He thinks that it is a good thing to extend the supposed cessation of the apostles with the cessation of other things. But then he draws an arbitrary line. If Mr. Busenitz wants to make the case for there being no apostles today, he will also need to tell us why there are still pastors, evangelists, helpers, and administrators today, and upon what biblical basis he makes this distinction.

He won't do this.)

The question then is an important one, underscoring the basic principle of the cessationist paradigm – namely, the uniqueness of the apostolic age and the subsequent cessation of certain aspects ("Certain aspects." There. He drew the line. But he will never tell us why he draws it there, or where in the Bible this line is found.)

of that age.

There are at least five reasons why we believe there are no longer any apostles in the church today (and in fact have not been since the death of the apostle John). (They will not be biblical reasons...)

* * *

1. The Qualifications Necessary for Apostleship

First, and perhaps most basically, the qualifications necessary for apostleship preclude contemporary Christians from filling the apostolic office. (This is quite false. We discuss this here.)

In order to be an apostle, one had to meet at least three necessary qualifications: (1) an apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8); (False criteria #1. Let's again quote the verses he provides:

Ac. 1:21-22 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Ac. 10:39-41 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen — by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

1Co. 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?

1Co. 15:7-8 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Ac. 1:21-22 does not tell us the apostles had to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, it tells us that the new apostle must become a witness, that is, one who joins with them to tell of the Gospel.

Ac. 10:39-41 is construed by Mr. Busenitz to suggest that only the apostles saw Jesus, and ate and drank with them after His resurrection. This is an incorrect conclusion, since many others saw Him. 

1Co. 15:6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Next, 1Co. 9:1 does not tell us that Paul was citing his encounter with Jesus as an apostolic qualification. If he was, we would also be required to add his other claims to the list: Am I not free? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? So are these things also unique apostolic claims? 

In actual fact, Paul was being accused of being an inadequate apostle [2Co. 12:11], he was not being accused of not being an apostle.

1Co. 15:7-8 does not tell us that Jesus appearing to people made them apostles. 

Therefore, criteria # 1, seeing the risen Lord, is not an apostolic qualification.)

(2) an apostle had to be directly appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1); and (False criteria #2. We shall not tire the reader by quoting these verses, since none of them illustrate Mr. Busenitz's point. We shall simply note that Barnabas, Andranicus, Junias, Epaphroditus, and other unnamed apostles [2Co. 8:23, 2Pe. 3:2-3] are not recorded as having seen the risen Christ, they are not mentioned as being directly appointed by Christ, and the Bible does not tell us that they were with Christ from the beginning. 

And Paul was not with the Twelve from the beginning.)

(3) an apostle had to be able to confirm his mission and message with miraculous signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4). (False criteria #3. We are beginning to suspect that the reason Mr. Busenitz does not quote Scripture is that none of these Scriptures document his point. None of these Scriptures tell us that only the apostles did miracles. Non-apostles Stephen [Ac. 6:8] and Ananias [Ac. 9:10] also did miracles. None of them tell us that the miracles confirmed the apostles. None of them even explain apostolic qualifications.)

We might also note that, in choosing Matthias as a replacement for Judas, the eleven also looked for someone who had accompanied Jesus throughout His entire earthly ministry (Acts 1:21–22; 10:39–41). (Whoops. This single criteria, the one actually mentioned by the Eleven, is glossed over. Why? Probably because Paul fails this criteria. Oddly, it's the one criteria he devotes the fewest words of explanation. Later he will excuse Paul, without referencing or explaining this criteria.)

Based on these qualifications alone, many continuationists agree that there are no apostles in the church today. (An errant conclusion based on a misreading of Scripture. And we have little interest in what other theologians believe. We want the Scriptural case.)

Thus, Wayne Grudem (a continuationist) notes in his Systematic Theology, “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” (p. 911). (Mr. Busenitz thinks that finding a theologian that agrees with him makes it an air-tight case.)

* * *

2. The Uniqueness of Paul’s Apostleship

But what about the apostle Paul?

Some have contended that, in the same way that Paul was an apostle, there might still be apostles in the church today. But this ignores the uniqueness with which Paul viewed his own apostleship. (One does not have to ignore Paul's uniqueness in order to believe in contemporary apostleship.)

Paul’s situation was not the norm, as he himself explains in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9. He saw himself as a one-of-a-kind anomaly, openly calling himself “the last” and “the least” of the apostles. (Sigh. Let's quote the verses. 1Co. 15:8-9:

...and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

So here we see that Paul did not claim he was the last apostle, only that He was the last of in a long procession of witnesses to see the risen Jesus.)

To cite from Grudem again:

It seems quite certain that there were none appointed after Paul. When Paul lists the resurrection appearances of Christ, he emphasizes the unusual way in which Christ appeared to him, and connects that with the statement that this was the “last” appearance of all, and that he himself is indeed “the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 910).

He later adds:

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 (Systematic Theology, 911, n. 9)

Because Paul’s apostleship was unique, it is not a pattern that we should expect to see replicated in the church today. (We agree that Paul's apostleship was unique, in particular because it violates the Eleven's criteria. But our admission does not justify the conclusion that Paul's uniqueness means there are no more apostles.)

* * *

3. Apostolic Authority and the Closing of the Canon

It is our belief that, if we hold to a closed canon, we must also hold to the cessation of the apostolic office.

We turn again to Dr. Grudem for an explanation of the close connection between the apostles and the writing of Scripture:

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. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 905–906)

Hebrews 1:1–2 indicates that what God first revealed through the Old Testament, He later and more fully revealed through His Son. The New Testament, then, is Christ’s revelation to His church. (Yes, it is. But Hebrews 1:1-2 doesn't tell us this. Let's quote it: 

He. 1:1-2 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

As you can see, dear reader, this passage does not discuss the OT or the NT.)

It begins with His earthly ministry (in the four gospels), and continues through the epistles – letters that were written by His authorized representatives. (Mr. Busenitz adds just enough truth to lead us to agree, then reaches conclusions that are not true. We heartily acknowledge that God revealed His purpose through all these agencies, but this does not mean that the apostles were the only ones to receive it, or that apostles must receive it to be apostles, or that there are no apostles now because the canon is complete. 

Jude, James, Mark, and Luke wrote Scripture but were not apostles. Several apostles did not write Scripture. And receiving revelation is not synonymous with writing Scripture.)

Thus, in John 14:26, Christ authorized His apostles to lead the church, (Again and again we are forced to quote the Scripture references. Jn. 14:26:

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

There is no authorization here and no mention of leading the church. We agree that that the apostles did lead the early church, but this Scripture does not say what Mr. Busenitz says it does.)

promising them that the Helper would come and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them. (We address this subject in detail here.)

The instruction they gave the church, then, was really an extension of Jesus’ ministry, as enabled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 3:5–6; 2 Pet. 1:20–21). Those in the early church generally understood apostolic instruction as authoritative and as being on par with the OT Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:9; 2 Pet. 3:16).

To cite from Grudem again, “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” (Ibid., 911).

The doctrine of a closed canon is, therefore, largely predicated on the fact that the apostles were unique and are no longer here. After all, if there were still apostles in the church today, with the same authority as the New Testament apostles, how could we definitively claim that the canon is closed? (We can claim the canon is closed because it is. Whether or not there are apostles with the same authority or a different authority is irrelevant.)

But since there are no longer apostles in the church today, (Mr. Busenitz presumes his conclusion as evidence.)

and since new inscripurated revelation must be accompanied by apostolic authority and approval, (Sigh. Mr. Busenitz makes these claims as if they were self evident. Where in the Bible does it tell us that this is true?)

it is not possible to have new inscripturated revelation today. (Yes, yes, the canon is closed. This is certainly true, but not relevant.)

The closing of the canon and the non-continuation of apostles are two concepts that necessarily go hand-in-hand. (Mr. Busenitz's Scriptural citations, previously shaky, now completely disappear. He instead substitutes questionable logic and inference.)

* * *

4. The Foundational Role of the Apostles

Closely related to the above is the fact that the apostles were part of the foundation period of the church (Eph. 2:20). Since (following the construction metaphor) the foundation stage precedes the superstructure, it is appropriate to infer that the apostles were given to the church for its beginning stages. As Grudem writes, “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)” (Ibid., 911, n. 9).

Our interpretation of “foundation” (as a reference to past period within the church’s history) is strengthened by the evidence from the earliest church fathers. (Appeal to history, not the Bible.)

The foundation stage was something the fathers referred to in the past tense, indicating that they understood it as past. (Well of course. But we are not required to assume that "apostle" and "foundation" are synonymous.)

Thus, Ignatius (c. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians, wrote (speaking in the past tense):

“The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people.” This was first fulfilled in Syria; for “the disciples were called Christians at Antioch,” when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in Against Heresies, echoes the past tense understanding that Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church (in 3.1.1) and later refers to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church” (in 4.21.3).

Tertullian (c. 155–230), in The Five Books Against Marcion (chapter 21), notes the importance of holding to apostolic doctrine, even in a post-apostolic age:

No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation.

Lactantius (c. 240–320), also, in The Divine Institutes (4.21) refers to a past time in which the foundations of the church were laid:

But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement might be founded and confirmed.

Other examples could also be added from the later Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Chrysostom, for instance, would be another such source (from his Homilies on Ephesians). (Yes, yes, yes. No one disputes that the foundational apostles were foundational.)

The earliest church fathers, from just after the apostolic era, understood the work of the apostles to constitute a unique, “foundational” stage of the church. The fact that they reference this in the past tense, as something distinct from their own ministries, indicates that they understood that the apostolic age had passed, and thus the foundation stage was over. (Yes, yes, yes. No one disputes that the foundational apostles were foundational.)

While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, (Mr. Busenitz has yet to effectively address the cessation of the apostolic gift.)

it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices. (We previously noted that these passages also list non-charismatic gifts. Again Mr. Busenitz punts on explaining why some have ceased while others have not.)

* * *

5. The Historical Testimony of Those Following the Apostles (An appeal to history, not the Bible.)

In our previous point, we contended that the apostles were given for the foundation stage of the church (Eph. 2:20), and that the early church recognized this foundation stage as a specific time-period that did not continue past the first century. (We would agree with this.)

But it is important to go one step further, and note that the earliest church fathers saw the apostles as a unique group of men, distinct from all who would follow after them.

(A) Those who came after the apostles did not view themselves or their contemporaries as apostles.

According to their own self-testimony, the Christian leaders who followed the apostles were not apostles themselves, but were the “disciples of the apostles” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 11; Fragments of Papias, 5; cf. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 6; Ignatius, Against Heresies, 1.10), the elders and deacons of the churches.

Thus, Clement (late first century) in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, notes that:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Ignatius, for instance, purposely avoided equating himself with the apostles. Thus, he wrote, “I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 11). (Whether or not Ignatius regarded himself as an apostle is irrelevant. His self-effacing statement is similar to Paul's. 1Co. 15:9: 

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Apostles are not self-proclaimed, they are recognized.)

(B) Those who followed the apostles viewed apostolic writings as both unique and authoritative.

Moreover, in keeping with our third point (above), it was “the doctrine of the apostles” (cf. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 13; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 1) that was to be guarded, taught, and heeded. Thus, the “memoirs of the apostles” were held as canonical and authoritative within the early church (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2.5; Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10.9).

Along these lines, Justin writes:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things (The First Apology of Justin, 67).

The doctrine and writing of the apostles was unique, having been written by the authoritative representatives of Christ Himself. (Well of course. That seems to be a necessary condition of any believer, that the Bible is authoritative.)

(C) Those who followed the apostles saw the apostolic age as a unique and unrepeated period of church history.

The fathers saw the “times of the apostles” as a distinct, non-repeateable period of church history (cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.36.54; Reply to Faustus, 32.13; On Baptism, 14.16; et al). Thus, Chrysostom wrote on the uniqueness of fellowship during the apostolic age:

I wish to give you an example of friendship. Friends, that is, friends according to Christ, surpass fathers and sons. For tell me not of friends of the present day, since this good thing also has past away with others. But consider, in the time of the Apostles, I speak not of the chief men, but of the believers themselves generally; “all,” he says, “were of one heart and soul. and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own… and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.” (Acts 4:32, 35.) There were then no such words as “mine” and “thine.” This is friendship, that a man should not consider his goods his own, but his neighbor’s, that his possessions belong to another; that he should be as careful of his friend’s soul, as of his own; and the friend likewise. (Homily on 1 Thess. 1:8-10)

Chrysostom looked back to the deep affection that characterized the apostolic era (He does not discuss apostles, he only recalls the noble nature of the church of the era.)

to provide a contrast to the relative lovelessness of the church in his day. In so doing, he underscores the fact that he understood the apostolic age to be long past. (He acknowledges a matter of history, and Mr. Busenitz adds apostles into the mix without justification.)

One additional passage might be cited in this regard:

I know that ye open wide your mouths and are amazed, at being to hear that it is in your power to have a greater gift than raising the dead, and giving eyes to the blind, doing the same things which were done in the time of the Apostles. And it seems to you past belief. What then is this gift? charity. (Homily on Heb. 1:6-8)

(Hmmm. "Done during the time of the Apostles" is not the same as "done by the apostles.")

Many more examples from church history could be given. Eusebius’s whole history is based on the progression of church history from the “times of the apostles” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, introduction). Basil, in his work On the Spirit, points to previous leaders from church history (specifically Irenaeus) as those “who lived near the times of the Apostles” (29.72). Tertullian spoke of events that occurred “after the times of the apostles” (The Five Books Against Marcion, 21). (Since Mr. Busenitz appeals to history, we can do the same:

Justin Martyr (100-165): “For the prophetical gifts remain with us even to the present time. Now it is possible to see among us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God.”

Irenaeus (125-200): “In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts and through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages. ... Yes, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years.”

Tertullian (150-240): “For seeing that we too acknowledge the spiritual charismata, or gifts, we too have merited the attainment of the prophetic gift ... and heaven knows how many distinguished men, to say nothing of the common people, have been cured either of devils or of their sicknesses.”

Novation (210-280): “This is he [the Holy Spirit] who places prophets in the church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works ... and arranges whatever gifts there are of the charismata; and thus making the Lord’s church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed."

Origen (185-284): “Some give evidence of their having received through this faith a marvelous power by the cures which they perform, invoking no other name over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, along with Jesus and a mention of his history.”

Augustine (354-430): In his work The City of God, Augustine tells of healings and miracles that he has observed firsthand and then says, “I am so pressed by the promise of finishing this work that I cannot record all the miracles I know.”

Historical Conclusions

Consistently, the fathers (from the earliest times) mark the apostolic age (and the apostles themselves) as unique. (Yes, yes, yes. No one disputes that the foundational apostles were foundational.)

Their writings were regarded as unique and authoritative. (Yes, yes, yes. No one disputes that the foundational apostles were foundational.)

Those that followed them were not considered to be apostles. (Again Mr. Busenitz's documentation disappears.)

Nor were the times that followed seen as equivalent to the times of the apostles. (This all has been an Appeal to History. Mr. Busenitz has barely discussed the Bible.

Thus we conclude, once again, with Grudem:

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. (That is, those who believed the apostolic office has ceased rejected the title of apostle. Hmm.) 

If any in modern times want to take the title “apostle” to themselves, the 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. (Systematic Theology, 911)

* * *

A Final Note

Throughout today’s post we have leaned heavily on the work of Wayne Grudem (specifically, his Systematic Theology). This has been intentional for two reasons: (1) he makes excellent, biblically-sound arguments (and we appreciate everything he writes, even if we don’t always agree with his conclusions); and (2) he is a well-known and respected continuationist. (Or, he is a useful source since he agrees with Mr. Busenitz.)

It is significant, in our opinion, that (as a continuationist) he argues so convincingly for the cessation of the apostolic office and the uniqueness of the apostolic age – since this is the very premise upon which the cessationist paradigm is built.

While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.