---------------
The strange fire conference was held about 10 years ago, and it was dedicated to attacking charismatic Christians. Though a decade ago, the fallout continues to this day, resulting in all sorts of errant teaching.
Now, we certainly do not claim that every charismatic Christian has perfect doctrine, but neither do cessationist Christians like Dr. MacArthur.
Today we combine several articles regarding Dr. McArthur's false teaching about apostles. It troubles us that Dr. MacArthur is unable to examine these issues clearly, yet he is considered a stellar Bible teacher.
Dr. MacArthur provides five false criteria as marks of a true apostle. He concludes with a completely astonishing lack of logical thought to assert that because there aren't apostles there aren't other spiritual gifts.
We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.
(1Co. 9:1 Am I not an apostle?2Co. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus...Tit. 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ...1Pe. 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...)
They weren’t required to submit an application or letters of recommendation.
(1Co. 16:3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.)
And there weren’t any extravagant membership fees.
Instead, the New Testament apostles were personally chosen by God. (Dr. MacArthur will go on to discuss only Paul, and presumes that every apostle is to be regarded in the same way Paul describes himself.)
2) Appointed by Jesus
(...)
An apostle in the New Testament was one sent to carry the gospel to sinners, and several individuals in the early church—both major and minor characters—were called apostles. Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), Andronicus and Junius (Romans 16:7) and James the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19) all bore the title, though they were not among the twelve chosen by our Lord. They are what 2 Corinthians 8:23 calls “messengers [apostles] of the churches.” (Waaiiiit. Dr. MacArthur just now admitted there were more apostles than those chosen by Jesus. He just negated his criteria #1!
Instead, the New Testament apostles were personally chosen by God. (Dr. MacArthur will go on to discuss only Paul, and presumes that every apostle is to be regarded in the same way Paul describes himself.)
Paul spends most of 2 Corinthians defending his apostleship and comparing his own ministry to some false apostles who had invaded the Corinthian church. He opened the book with a familiar greeting that highlights where he received his apostolic calling from: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (2 Corinthians 1:1). He began his first letter to the Corinthian church with similar words: “Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God” (1 Corinthians 1:1). And he echoed that same idea in Ephesians 1:1, Colossians 1:1, and 2 Timothy 1:1. The clear testimony of Paul’s writing is that he was an apostle because he had been chosen for that role by God. (Agreed.)
He went into even more detail in Galatians 1:15-16, where he wrote, “When God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles.” Paul’s ministry was not his own achievement—he gave all the credit for his apostolic work to God. It was the Lord who ordained him before he was even born, setting him aside for salvation and the work of the gospel. And by identifying that God’s ordaining work took place while he was still in his mother’s womb, Paul illustrates just how passive a part he played in his apostolic calling. (Agreed.)
Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 1:1, Paul writes that he serves as “an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus.” Paul had a direct charge from God the Father and Jesus Christ to carry out his ministry. The language he uses refers to a royal command that is not negotiable. It was a divine mandate on his life. (Agreed.)
That was the true nature of the apostolic calling. (For Paul, agreed.)
He went into even more detail in Galatians 1:15-16, where he wrote, “When God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles.” Paul’s ministry was not his own achievement—he gave all the credit for his apostolic work to God. It was the Lord who ordained him before he was even born, setting him aside for salvation and the work of the gospel. And by identifying that God’s ordaining work took place while he was still in his mother’s womb, Paul illustrates just how passive a part he played in his apostolic calling. (Agreed.)
Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 1:1, Paul writes that he serves as “an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus.” Paul had a direct charge from God the Father and Jesus Christ to carry out his ministry. The language he uses refers to a royal command that is not negotiable. It was a divine mandate on his life. (Agreed.)
That was the true nature of the apostolic calling. (For Paul, agreed.)
It wasn’t a special club you joined. It was God’s divine ordination on specific men, (For Paul...)
setting them aside for specific work He chose to accomplish through them. (For Paul...)
The apostles were chosen by God. (Was Barnabas chosen by God [Ac. 14:14]? Epaphroditus [Ph. 2:25]? How many apostles, besides the Twelve and Paul, were chosen by God?)
The apostles were chosen by God. (Was Barnabas chosen by God [Ac. 14:14]? Epaphroditus [Ph. 2:25]? How many apostles, besides the Twelve and Paul, were chosen by God?)
But even that was not their only necessary credential. As we’ll see next time, they were also appointed by Christ.
2) Appointed by Jesus
(...)
An apostle in the New Testament was one sent to carry the gospel to sinners, and several individuals in the early church—both major and minor characters—were called apostles. Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), Andronicus and Junius (Romans 16:7) and James the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19) all bore the title, though they were not among the twelve chosen by our Lord. They are what 2 Corinthians 8:23 calls “messengers [apostles] of the churches.” (Waaiiiit. Dr. MacArthur just now admitted there were more apostles than those chosen by Jesus. He just negated his criteria #1!
Now he has moved on to criteria #2. But "appointed" is hardly different than "chosen." Will Dr. MacArthur also have a criteria "selected" or "set apart"? It seems he is padding his list.
Since Dr. MacArthur has just established that there were more apostles, his entire premise has now fallen apart since he has tacitly admitted that his criteria do not forbid present-day apostles.)
In that broad sense, believers today are able to accomplish apostolic work through evangelism and service to the church. But that’s not what many modern church leaders mean when they lay claim to the apostolic office. Instead, modern apostles are claiming authority, privilege, and power that belonged only to men specifically appointed by Jesus. (We have no reason to accept the assertion that every [or any] person who claims to be an apostle today is claiming authority, privilege, and power of the early apostles. Further, Dr. MacArthur must prove that there are no apostles today at all, not that there aren't apostles exactly like the early apostles.)
In its more restricted and common New Testament usage, apostle refers to “an apostle of Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 1:1). Those apostles included the original twelve (with the deletion of Judas and the addition of Matthias after Judas’s defection) and Paul. In contrast to the apostles of the churches, these men were commissioned by Christ Himself. They were chosen by Him (cf. Luke 6:13; Acts 9:15) and learned the gospel from Him, not other men (cf. Galatians 1:11-12). (Dr. MacArthur is again taking Paul's claims and applying them to all the apostles.)
In Mark 3:14, we read that “He [Jesus] appointed twelve,” who are then named in verses 16-19. As we saw last time, the apostles were chosen by God long before they were ever born. But in life, they were hand selected by God incarnate. As Jesus said in John 15:16, “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit.”
That same mindset drove Paul to describe his own work as “the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:24). He also echoed that sentiment in Romans 1:4-5, recognizing Christ as the source of his apostleship.
New Testament apostles were not only chosen by God, they were appointed by Jesus—called out from the crowd and set aside for specific work on behalf of the Savior. (We wonder if Dr. MacArthur is thinking clearly. He keeps making claims about the Twelve [or is it 13? Or 14? or 18?] as if they were all in the same category, yet admits there were other "apostles of the churches" who do not conform to these criteria.
In that broad sense, believers today are able to accomplish apostolic work through evangelism and service to the church. But that’s not what many modern church leaders mean when they lay claim to the apostolic office. Instead, modern apostles are claiming authority, privilege, and power that belonged only to men specifically appointed by Jesus. (We have no reason to accept the assertion that every [or any] person who claims to be an apostle today is claiming authority, privilege, and power of the early apostles. Further, Dr. MacArthur must prove that there are no apostles today at all, not that there aren't apostles exactly like the early apostles.)
In its more restricted and common New Testament usage, apostle refers to “an apostle of Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 1:1). Those apostles included the original twelve (with the deletion of Judas and the addition of Matthias after Judas’s defection) and Paul. In contrast to the apostles of the churches, these men were commissioned by Christ Himself. They were chosen by Him (cf. Luke 6:13; Acts 9:15) and learned the gospel from Him, not other men (cf. Galatians 1:11-12). (Dr. MacArthur is again taking Paul's claims and applying them to all the apostles.)
In Mark 3:14, we read that “He [Jesus] appointed twelve,” who are then named in verses 16-19. As we saw last time, the apostles were chosen by God long before they were ever born. But in life, they were hand selected by God incarnate. As Jesus said in John 15:16, “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit.”
That same mindset drove Paul to describe his own work as “the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:24). He also echoed that sentiment in Romans 1:4-5, recognizing Christ as the source of his apostleship.
New Testament apostles were not only chosen by God, they were appointed by Jesus—called out from the crowd and set aside for specific work on behalf of the Savior. (We wonder if Dr. MacArthur is thinking clearly. He keeps making claims about the Twelve [or is it 13? Or 14? or 18?] as if they were all in the same category, yet admits there were other "apostles of the churches" who do not conform to these criteria.
This means the apostles were either special or not special, depending on how Dr. MacArthur divides them up. But at the same time he requires that all present-day apostles be of only one kind, the kind that Dr. MacArthur has made special.
It makes no sense.)
It’s a wonder then that so many men and women today claim the authority and power of the apostolic office when they so clearly lack the necessary credentials which accompanied that office in Scripture. As we further examine the marks of a true apostle, we'll see that their vain claims hold no water. That’s where we will pick it up next time.
3) Witness of the Risen Christ
(...)
We’ve already seen in previous posts that the New Testament apostles were chosen by God and appointed by Jesus. Today we’ll look at another of their key credentials—that they were all witnesses of the risen Christ.
The first chapter of Acts gives a fascinating, intimate glimpse of the Body of Christ in its infancy, including a detailed account of how the apostles identified the man who would replace Judas as the twelfth apostle. In verses 21-22, Peter declares that
It’s a wonder then that so many men and women today claim the authority and power of the apostolic office when they so clearly lack the necessary credentials which accompanied that office in Scripture. As we further examine the marks of a true apostle, we'll see that their vain claims hold no water. That’s where we will pick it up next time.
3) Witness of the Risen Christ
(...)
We’ve already seen in previous posts that the New Testament apostles were chosen by God and appointed by Jesus. Today we’ll look at another of their key credentials—that they were all witnesses of the risen Christ.
The first chapter of Acts gives a fascinating, intimate glimpse of the Body of Christ in its infancy, including a detailed account of how the apostles identified the man who would replace Judas as the twelfth apostle. In verses 21-22, Peter declares that
it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.
According to Peter, the new apostle needed to be someone who was associated with Christ, who had consistently sat under His teaching, and who had witnessed firsthand His ministry and life. (Um, what about Paul? He doesn't qualify under these criteria.)
It wasn’t enough to know about Christ—the replacement apostle needed to know Him personally. In particular, he needed to have known Christ after His resurrection.
There were two candidates who fit that description, “so they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias” (Acts 1:23). The rest of the apostles prayed for the Lord to reveal His will and then drew lots—a common Old Testament method of determining God’s will (cf. Leviticus 16:8-10; Joshua 7:14; Proverbs 18:18)—which revealed Matthias as the Lord’s choice for the task.
Later in Acts 10:38-41, Peter reasserts the importance of the apostles’ firsthand knowledge of the risen Christ. In his sermon in Cornelius’s household, Peter says:
There were two candidates who fit that description, “so they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias” (Acts 1:23). The rest of the apostles prayed for the Lord to reveal His will and then drew lots—a common Old Testament method of determining God’s will (cf. Leviticus 16:8-10; Joshua 7:14; Proverbs 18:18)—which revealed Matthias as the Lord’s choice for the task.
Later in Acts 10:38-41, Peter reasserts the importance of the apostles’ firsthand knowledge of the risen Christ. In his sermon in Cornelius’s household, Peter says:
You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
The resurrection was particularly important because it gave credibility to Jesus’ life—it verified that He was who He said He was. So, for the apostles, being eyewitness verifiers of Christ’s resurrection gave heft to their ministry. In fact, the resurrection was the primary theme of apostolic preaching (cf. Acts 2:24; Acts 3:15; Acts 5:30; Acts 10:40; Acts 13:30-37). (But Acts 1:21-22 does not say that the apostles needed to witness the resurrected Christ! Let's requote it:
it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.
"Become a witness with us of His resurrection" is not the same as "being eyewitness verifiers of Christ’s resurrection." Dr. MacArthur's obvious mistake is that the apostles were not describing a qualification, they were describing a duty. Becoming a witness is something the new apostle would join in with them as his duty.)
And although the apostle Paul did not bear witness to Christ’s full life and ministry—which is likely why he referred to himself as “one untimely born”— he was no less a witness of the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:8). In fact, Paul was made an apostle by virtue of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-8). He didn’t witness Christ’s baptism, His miracles, His teaching, or His crucifixion. But he had met the risen Christ in a powerful and dramatic way that transformed his life and made him fit for apostolic ministry.(This is a lame dodge. Paul didn't qualify, period. This can only mean that the qualification was only for Judas' replacement and not intended as applying to any future apostle.)
The primary duty of the apostles was to bear witness to Christ’s work and claims. In order to do that effectively, they had to be witnesses of His resurrection. (Oh, my. Dr. MacArthur correctly describes the apostles' statement in Acts 1:21-22 in the first sentence, the astonishingly repeats his error in the second sentence.)
On that simple point of qualification, all modern apostles fall short. (Since it is clear that the apostles' statements about replacing Judas do not apply to today, there obviously can be apostles in some fashion.)
4) Unique Ministry Duties
Depending on whom you believe, there are perhaps thousands or even tens of thousands of apostles living and serving in the church today. Never mind that these modern apostles bear little resemblance to the men we read about in the New Testament. In fact, their teaching and their ministries are often radical departures from the apostolic work we see in Scripture. (Again Dr. MacArthur requires present-day apostles to be in his category of special apostles. Apparently they cannot simply be "apostles of the churches.")
To help make sense of these claims of modern apostleship, we’ve been examining the biblical characteristics of the New Testament apostles. And when it comes to understanding the office of apostle, we need to consider not just the one called to that office, but the work they were called to do. The New Testament apostles served specific functions in the early church and fulfilled unique ministry duties the Lord had chosen them for.
The gospels indicate that those duties began during the ministry of Christ. Mark 3:14-15 says, “And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, and to have authority to cast out the demons.” As we saw last time, the apostles enjoyed unique relationships with Christ—relationships that would later serve as ministry credentials. But there was also an aspect of basic companionship for Jesus—these men were appointed “so that they would be with Him.” They were Christ’s friends, sharing with Him in all the issues of life.
In addition to friendship with Jesus, they were also appointed to preach. In His final words to them, Christ commanded His apostles to “go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). In reference to his own apostolic ministry, Paul says he “received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake” (Romans 1:5). The apostles were selected by God to faithfully carry the gospel to the world. And in doing so, they would help lay the theological foundation for the church—we’ll look more intently at that next time. (Dr. MacArthur again describes the Twelve as if they must be the template for judging modern-day apostles. We cannot ascertain why he requires this.)
Christ also bestowed on His apostles the ability to perform miracles. Specifically, “He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons and to heal diseases. And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing” (Luke 9:1-2).
And in the working of those miraculous signs, the New Testament apostles clearly stand apart from modern apostles and faith healers. (Dr. MacArthur again describes the Twelve as if they must be the template for judging modern-day apostles. We cannot ascertain why he requires this.)
To begin with, New Testament miracles did not depend on the faith of the recipients (cf. Acts 3:6-8; Acts 16:18). (Um, no:
Mt. 9:22 Jesus turned and saw her. “Take heart, daughter,” he said, “your faith has healed you.”
Mt. 9:29 Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith will it be done to you”
Lk. 7:50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Lk. 17:19 Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”)
Sometimes faith in Jesus heals, sometimes faith isn't required. This is why we question Dr. MacArthur's competence as a Bible teacher.)
Nor were New Testament healings performed for money or fame (cf. Acts 8:20). By contrast, healings in the New Testament were always completely successful (cf. Matthew 14:36), (Um, no:
Mk. 1:34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases.
Ac. 8:7 With shrieks, evil spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed.
"Many" does not mean "every." When "many" believed [Ac. 17:12, Ac. 19:18], that means some did not. So many healed does not mean everyone healed.
Further, the disciples could not heal everyone:
Mt. 17:16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.
And Jesus could not heal everyone:
Mk. 6:5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.
We have now reached the point where we will no longer accept as true any statement by Dr. MacArthur.)
Mk. 8:24-25 He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.” 25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.
and spontaneous (cf. Matthew 8:14-15; Matthew 9:20-22; Acts 3:1-7). Furthermore, New Testament healings weren’t the main event—they were performed to authenticate the true gospel of God (cf. John 10:38; Acts 2:22; Romans 15:18-19; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:3-4). (Dr. MacArthur swerves into the truth. The miraculous is typically claimed by cessationists to authenticate the messenger. But Dr. MacArthur is correct: the miraculous authenticated the message.)
Through the power of God, the apostles had comprehensive authority over the natural and supernatural realms. But their miracles weren’t some dramatic sideshow. They performed those miracles not for their own glory, but as verification that they truly represented God and His Word. (Oh. Whoops. Dr. MacArthur swerves away from the truth.
Through the power of God, the apostles had comprehensive authority over the natural and supernatural realms. But their miracles weren’t some dramatic sideshow. They performed those miracles not for their own glory, but as verification that they truly represented God and His Word. (Oh. Whoops. Dr. MacArthur swerves away from the truth.
There is no Bible verse that tells us the apostles did miracles to prove who they were. There is no Bible verse that tells us a church asked an apostle to perform a miracle to prove he was an apostle. There is no Bible verse that tells us about a miracle done by an apostle where people responded, "he must be an apostle!"
None of the above verses cited by Dr. MacArthur tell us that miracles authenticated the apostles. Let's quote them:
Jn. 10:38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.
Obviously, this verse is about Jesus not the apostles.
Ac. 2:22 Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
Ro. 15:18 I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done — 19 by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way round to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
Dr. MacArthur finally finds a somewhat relevant verse. But we find that Paul was not pointing to his miracles for his own validation, but rather as one of several things "Christ has accomplished" through him.
2Co. 12:12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance.
Again he finds a semi-relevant verse. But notice that Paul does not make exclusive claims. He does not say that only apostles can do signs, wonders, and miracles. We know this is true since, Stephen was not an apostle yet did wonders [Ac. 6:8]. Ananias did a miracle [Ac. 9:18]. And even an unnamed man, not an apostle, did miracles [Mk. 9:38-39].
Remember, we are dealing with "unique ministry duties." But we find that these duties are not unique and do not set apart the early apostles as the only ones who could do miracles.)
The work of the apostles was unique and isolated to the first-century church. No modern apostle can accurately claim to carry on that same work today. Both in their gifts and their duties, the apostles served a specific function in God’s plan for His church—one that simply does not extend into the modern age. (Yet again Dr. MacArthur creates this false requirement that modern-day apostles must be like the Twelve, not simply "apostles of the churches." We will never learn why he requires this.)
5) Foundation of the Church
The New Apostolic Reformation—led by Peter Wagner and other modern apostles—contends that we’re living in the second apostolic age of the church, in which they exert the same authority over the church as the New Testament apostles. (Does Peter Wagner actually claim this? Perhaps he has, but we no longer trust Dr. MacArthur to accurately tell us these things.)
But as we’ve seen over the last few weeks, these modern apostles aren’t even a shadow of their biblical forebears. In any examination of the biblical marks of a true apostle, these modern apostles routinely fall short. (Yet again Dr. MacArthur creates this false requirement that modern-day apostles must be like the Twelve, not simply "apostles of the churches." We will never learn why he requires this.)
The fact is, the New Testament apostles served the Body of Christ in a specific, unique way that is unrepeatable. They weren’t just gifted pastors, evangelists, and missionaries—they were the foundation of the church. (Yet again Dr. MacArthur creates this false requirement that modern-day apostles must be like the Twelve, not simply "apostles of the churches." We will never learn why he requires this.)
When writing his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul explained that his readers were part of God’s household, “having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:19–20). That passage equates the apostles with the church’s foundation. It means nothing if it doesn’t decisively limit apostleship to the earliest stages of church history. (This is a completely mystifying claim. It's like saying that today we cannot have men of George Washington's stature because he was a founding father and there cannot be more founding fathers.
The fact is, the New Testament apostles served the Body of Christ in a specific, unique way that is unrepeatable. They weren’t just gifted pastors, evangelists, and missionaries—they were the foundation of the church. (Yet again Dr. MacArthur creates this false requirement that modern-day apostles must be like the Twelve, not simply "apostles of the churches." We will never learn why he requires this.)
When writing his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul explained that his readers were part of God’s household, “having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:19–20). That passage equates the apostles with the church’s foundation. It means nothing if it doesn’t decisively limit apostleship to the earliest stages of church history. (This is a completely mystifying claim. It's like saying that today we cannot have men of George Washington's stature because he was a founding father and there cannot be more founding fathers.
But we certainly can have men like George Washington today, but of course they cannot be founders.)
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. (Which simply means that we cannot have foundational apostles today; that is, the men upon whom the church was built. This seems painfully obvious to us.)
When one considers the writings of the church fathers—those Christian leaders who lived shortly after the apostles—it quickly becomes evident that they regarded the foundational age of the church to be in the past. [1] (Well of course. No one disputes this.)
When one considers the writings of the church fathers—those Christian leaders who lived shortly after the apostles—it quickly becomes evident that they regarded the foundational age of the church to be in the past. [1] (Well of course. No one disputes this.)
Ignatius (c. A.D. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians, spoke in the past tense of the foundation-laying work of Peter and Paul. Referring to the book of Acts, Ignatius wrote, “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” (emphasis added). (No one disputes this.)
In Against Heresies, Irenaeus (c. 130–202) referred to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church.” (No one disputes this.)
In Against Heresies, Irenaeus (c. 130–202) referred to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church.” (No one disputes this.)
Tertullian (c. 155–230) similarly explained that “after the time of the apostles” the only doctrine that true Christians accepted was that which was “proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation” (from Against Marcion, emphasis added). (No one disputes this.)
Lactantius (c. 240–320) in his Divine Institutes likewise referred to the past time in which the apostolic foundations of the church were laid. Commenting on the role of the twelve, he explained that “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.” (No one disputes this.)
Examples could be multiplied but the point is clear. Modern charismatics may claim that an apostolic foundation is still being laid today. (Do charismatics claim actually claim this? We don't believe Dr. MacArthur anymore.)
Examples could be multiplied but the point is clear. Modern charismatics may claim that an apostolic foundation is still being laid today. (Do charismatics claim actually claim this? We don't believe Dr. MacArthur anymore.)
But such a notion runs contrary to both the plain sense of Scripture and the understanding of those Christian leaders who immediately followed the apostles in history: those leaders clearly understood the church’s apostolic foundation to have been fully completed in the first century. Any notion of modern apostles would simply obliterate the meaning of Paul’s metaphor in Ephesians 2:20. (Yet again Dr. MacArthur creates this false requirement that modern-day apostles must be like the Twelve, not simply "apostles of the churches." We will never learn why he requires this.)
If the apostles constitute the foundation of the church, it is sheer folly to try to relocate them to the rafters.
(We have now completed the examination of Dr. MacArthur's five false criteria. It's quite sad to us that people think these are sensible, persuasive arguments.
Now Dr. MacArthur turns to apostolic cessation as the reason other things ceased.)
The Importance of Apostolic Cessation
Modern charismatic leaders like Peter Wagner may argue for the continuation of the gift and office of apostleship; Roman Catholics might similarly insist on an apostolic succession that they apply to the pope. But both assertions are severely misguided. Any honest evaluation of the New Testament evidence reveals that the apostles were a unique group of men, handpicked and personally commissioned by the Lord Jesus Himself to lay the doctrinal foundation for the church, with Christ as the cornerstone. (Yet again Dr. MacArthur creates this false requirement that modern-day apostles must be like the Twelve, not simply "apostles of the churches." We will never learn why he requires this.)
No one alive today can possibly meet the biblical criteria required for apostleship. (We have seen these "biblical criteria" do not come to bear on the topic.)
And even in the first century, when all agree the miraculous gifts were fully operational, only a very select group of spiritual leaders were regarded as apostles. (Wow, a brand-new claim. So, how many apostles were there, exactly?
Well, in this article Dr. MacArthur has assented to the original 12, Matthias replacing Judas [#13], Paul [#14], Barnabas [#15], Epaphroditus [#16], Andronicus and Junius, [#17 and 18] and James the Lord’s brother [#19].
He has also assented to unnumbered apostles, which he agrees are "apostles of the churches":
2Co. 8:23 As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow-worker among you; as for our brothers, they are representatives of the churches and an honor to Christ.
Dr. MacArthur doesn't mention these apostles:
2Pe. 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
How many apostles were there? We don't know, and Dr. MacArthur doesn't know. There could have been hundreds. So there's no possible way he can claim there were "a very select group of spiritual leaders were regarded as apostles.")
That was the consensus of the faithful—until the twenty-first century, when all of a sudden we are being told that we must once again accept the reemergence of apostles in the church. From a purely biblical perspective (and from any clear historical perspective as well), such modern assertions are as confused as they are conceited. (It is Dr. MacArthur who is confused. Or perhaps, so inured to his doctrine that he cannot see what Scripture actually teaches.)
The reality is that the gift and office of apostleship ceased after the first century. (Whoa. A whole new claim, asserted but not documented. Indeed, after delineating categories of apostleship, Dr. MacArthur summarily dismisses any kind of modern-day apostle without explanation.)
The reality is that the gift and office of apostleship ceased after the first century. (Whoa. A whole new claim, asserted but not documented. Indeed, after delineating categories of apostleship, Dr. MacArthur summarily dismisses any kind of modern-day apostle without explanation.)
When the apostle John went to heaven, the apostolate came to an end. Of course, apostolic influence has continued through the inspired Scriptures, which the apostles penned. (No. Luke, Mark, Jude, and James were not apostles, yet wrote Scripture.)
But we should not think of the apostolic foundation as being perpetually laid throughout church history. It was completed within their lifetimes, never needing to be laid down again. (Sigh. Who wants to re-lay the foundation? This is getting frustrating.)
Look again at what the cessation of apostleship means for continuationist-charismatic doctrine. Clearly, not everything that happened in the New Testament church is still happening today. (No charismatic makes such a claim.)
Look again at what the cessation of apostleship means for continuationist-charismatic doctrine. Clearly, not everything that happened in the New Testament church is still happening today. (No charismatic makes such a claim.)
That is an inconvenient and embarrassing confession for any charismatic to make, because the apostolic office itself is a gift. Ephesians 4:11 plainly says so. If that office has ceased, we cannot insist, as charismatics do, that all the spiritual gifts described in Acts and 1 Corinthians have continued. (Wow. Just wow. No thinking person would say such a thing.
By way of analogy, if one cannot buy bananas it does not tell us about the availability of apples. So just because Dr. MacArthur thinks he has taken apostleship out of the picture does not speak in any way to the continuation of the spiritual gifts.
Further, it is actually cessationists who have the problem. They believe some of the offices still continue, like pastor, evangelist, and teacher. Therefore, using the same logic, if apostleship has ceased, then these other three must have ceased.
And, if the miraculous gifts, like prophecy, tongues, and healing have ceased, then so has generosity, helps, and administration.
The argument cuts both ways.)
In Thomas Edgar’s words: “The fact that the gift of apostle ceased with the apostolic age is a devastating blow to the basic assumption underlying the entire charismatic perspective, namely, the assumption that all gifts are to be operative throughout the church age. We know that at least one gift ceased; therefore, their foundational assumption is incorrect.” [2] (That's just bad logic. Period. A charismatic is not required to believe that everything has continued exactly like what happened in the first century. The Bible does not tell us this. Logic does not tell us this. Common sense does not tell us this.)
Some charismatics, recognizing that apostleship did not continue beyond the first century, attempt to argue that it was only an office and not a gift. Thus, they contend that while the apostolic office ceased, the miraculous gifts have all still continued. This clever attempt to circumvent the inevitable ramifications for the charismatic position ultimately falls flat, since apostles are listed in Paul’s delineation of the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:28–29, right alongside prophets, miracle workers, and tongues speakers. (and right alongside teachers, helps, and administration. Again we assert that Dr. MacArthur has the exact same problem, just on the other side of the coin.)
Some charismatics, recognizing that apostleship did not continue beyond the first century, attempt to argue that it was only an office and not a gift. Thus, they contend that while the apostolic office ceased, the miraculous gifts have all still continued. This clever attempt to circumvent the inevitable ramifications for the charismatic position ultimately falls flat, since apostles are listed in Paul’s delineation of the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:28–29, right alongside prophets, miracle workers, and tongues speakers. (and right alongside teachers, helps, and administration. Again we assert that Dr. MacArthur has the exact same problem, just on the other side of the coin.)
In the context, it is clearly one of the gifts Paul has in mind, flowing out of the argument he begins in verses 4–5 and concluding in verse 31 (where Paul uses the term charisma to refer to the items he had just listed in verses 28–30). Additionally, Paul’s point in Ephesians 4:11 is that apostles are given by Christ to His church. While it is true that apostleship was also an office, that does not preclude it from being a gift. Prophecy, for example, encompassed both an office and a gift, as did the gift of teaching. (Dr. MacArthur once again has ceded his argument. If there is a distinction between the office and the gift of teaching, and the office of prophet and the gift of prophecy, then the office of apostle is also different than the gift of apostle.
This has been our entire point all along. If there were "apostles of the churches" as Dr. MacArthur asserts, then is there any reason these apostles might not be the gift of apostleship as opposed to the office? And if these "apostles of the churches" existed in the first century, then why can't they exist today, since the foundational apostles are a separate category?)
In the end, despite the protests of some continuationists, there is no escaping the fact that one of the most significant features described in 1 Corinthians 12 (namely, apostleship) is no longer active in the church today. It ceased. To acknowledge that point is to acknowledge the foundational premise on which cessationism is based. If apostleship ceased, then not everything that characterized the New Testament church still characterizes the church today. Moreover, that opens the door to the real possibility that some of the other gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12–14 have also ceased.
In the end, despite the protests of some continuationists, there is no escaping the fact that one of the most significant features described in 1 Corinthians 12 (namely, apostleship) is no longer active in the church today. It ceased. To acknowledge that point is to acknowledge the foundational premise on which cessationism is based. If apostleship ceased, then not everything that characterized the New Testament church still characterizes the church today. Moreover, that opens the door to the real possibility that some of the other gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12–14 have also ceased.
No comments:
Post a Comment