Apostolic Succession

[fightngwrmwood]

Hi Sue, yes, we always must be careful about what we spend our time mulling over in our minds and what
we set before our eyes. A verse came to me when i read this, and given the value you've stressed on guarding our souls to be sure to be hearing from the Lord and not men, it seems to fit. The part that emphasizes and is no lie, particularly popped at me this time, thanks to you

I do believe that the Lord equips us with everything we need no matter where we are, turning to Him, He will act for our best: be it revealing deception, challenging us with self control, gracing us with surrendered hearts to let Him pick what we read and who we run with, or taking a risk He wants that no one else understands, in all things at all times, He's with us and, regardless of how we turn, loves us.

1 John 2:27. But the annointing that you received from Him abides in you and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his annointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in Him.

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

Not sure where to place this, but I was wondering if any of you knew anything about this subject. I just became aware of this yesterday, so it is new to me. I did some research on it yesterday, but if you have anything to share with me on this subject, I would appreciate your input. Thanks.

Hello Sue,

The doctrine of apostolic succession is rooted in the Bible.

"And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others." 2 Timothy 2:2

We see in the Bible the history of the development of the early church, where the Apostles themselves were going around setting up churches, and in each city they would choose one or two men, train those men up and pray for them, make sure that they are God-fearing and Christ-loving, and entrust the care of the church to those men.

And the Apostles instructed those men who they had put in charge of the churches to do likewise: train up a successor so that the church would always have a Godly leader. This is just common sense and wisdom playing itself out in the early church, encouraged by The Holy Spirit.

Imagine you are living in the year 150 A.D., and there are two churches in your area that claim to be Christian. You do not have a Bible by which you can judge the doctrines of the churches to choose the right place to worship. One of the churches is gnostic and claims to be the real church of Christ, but has no proof of its inspiration. The other church can show you a clear line of succession from the Apostle John down through a couple successors who were personally instructed and discipled by the Apostle Himself. Which church do you choose?

I think you may be starting to see why Apostolic succession can be so very important, especially back in the first few centuries.

Regards,
-Taylor

 

[Travis]

The apostles did not transfer their apostolicity to other's. They did transfer authority and responsibility to others at times. Those aren't one and the same.

There were many apostate churches who could claim descendency from the apostles direct teaching, etc, in the 2nd and 3rd century. That means nothing though.

How you tell the difference between a gnostic church and a legit church is having the Holy Spirit inside of you and knowing who God is, and recognizing Him working in the gathering together you are looking at joining.

A claim to apostolic succession means absolutely nothing. Having the Spirit of God upon oneself and the group means everything.

Training up pastors is good. This does not guarantee apostasy will not happen though. There are many tares in the churches, and many (if not most) of those seeking leadership positions fall into this category. Satan is very interested in getting his men and women into those positions. Just look at the seminaries today, they are almost completely subverted in most every way. They are like wolf factories.

Blessings,

Travis

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

The apostles did not transfer their apostolicity to other's. They did transfer authority and responsibility to others at times. Those aren't one and the same.

There were many apostate churches who could claim descendency from the apostles direct teaching, etc, in the 2nd and 3rd century. That means nothing though.

How you tell the difference between a gnostic church and a legit church is having the Holy Spirit inside of you and knowing who God is, and recognizing Him working in the gathering together you are looking at joining.

A claim to apostolic succession means absolutely nothing. Having the Spirit of God upon oneself and the group means everything.

Training up pastors is good. This does not guarantee apostasy will not happen though. There are many tares in the churches, and many (if not most) of those seeking leadership positions fall into this category. Satan is very interested in getting his men and women into those positions. Just look at the seminaries today, they are almost completely subverted in most every way. They are like wolf factories.

Blessings,

Travis

Hey Travis!

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, now.

Of course, "apostolic succession" (which only means an unbroken line of elders going back to the apostles) is not a guarantee of anything.

However, as you said, the Apostles did transfer their authority to men they had personally trained.

And those men passed on their authority to the men they trained.

And so on.


This is just wisdom playing itself in the life of the early church. And it does indeed count for something! Placing our trust in human judgement and human succession would be foolish, but trusting that The Holy Spirit guided that process of succession is another thing entirely. Of course, over the course of a couple millennia we might expect to see some corruption enter in. And I think we did. And that is why I am not a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox, but rather just simply CHRISTIAN. But, being Christian, I do think it best to judge all my Christian brothers and sisters fairly and righteously. And I think a fair judgement of apostolic succession judges that it was indeed extremely beneficial especially during the first few centuries before the Bible existed.

-Taylor

 

[Travis]

This is just wisdom playing itself in the life of the early church. And it does indeed count for something! Placing our trust in human judgement and human succession would be foolish, but trusting that The Holy Spirit guided that process of succession is another thing entirely. Of course, over the course of a couple millennia we might expect to see some corruption enter in. And I think we did. And that is why I am not

Hi Taylor.

This is a good example of a logical fallacy. They are more common than dirt, but still I think it's important to address them.

Fact, the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to insure that some apostolic line of authority could successfully be passed down a successive line of apostles.

It is my opinion (hypothetically) that this is/was necessary for us to keep the purity of the church.

Therefore, since it is possible, and I believe that this is how it was meant to happen, this must of been how it happened.

However, the scriptures do not support any idea that a successive line of apostles has anything to do with the church at all.

It's just made up.

I'm curious where you got this doctrine from, a church you attend?

Blessings,

Travis

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

Hi Taylor.

This is a good example of a logical fallacy. They are more common than dirt, but still I think it's important to address them.

Fact, the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to insure that some apostolic line of authority could successfully be passed down a successive line of apostles.

It is my opinion (hypothetically) that this is/was necessary for us to keep the purity of the church.

Therefore, since it is possible, and I believe that this is how it was meant to happen, this must of been how it happened.

However, the scriptures do not support any idea that a successive line of apostles has anything to do with the church at all.

It's just made up.

I'm curious where you got this doctrine from, a church you attend?

Blessings,

Travis

Travis,

I never said, and I do not think that anyone else is arguing, that there has been a successive line of Apostle's.

Rather, a successive line of people who trace their lineage back to the Apostles. Big difference!

Jesus promised to preserve His church, not the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox or the Protestants, but The Body of Christ.

So during those early years, the first few centuries before the Bible was put together, yes it is Biblical to say that The Holy Spirit worked to preserve doctrine and leadership.

And one of the major ways this was accomplished was through """"apostolic succession"""". (Notice the five quotation marks on either side, I am not claiming that successors became Apostles, but only that they were the successors of the Apostles.)

No church is teaching me this... this is just something that is clearly evident from a basic study of church history. The Apostles trained up successors, and their successors traiend up successors, etc. That is an undeniable fact. It is also undeniable that The Holy Spirit was heavily involved in this process.

You can argue that The Holy Spirit did not get so heavily involved in this process so as to completely prevent any and all errors. And I agree! But He was heavily involved nonetheless.

I think you are so opposed to this idea because you are setting it up as a straw man. This is not the Roman Catholic doctrine of infallibility. This is just simply the fact that a church is better off having a direct line of successors down from the Apostles than they would be without it. It does not claim that every church with a line of succession is better than every church which does not have a direct line of succession.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

 

[Travis]

I never said, and I do not think that anyone else is arguing, that there has been a successive line of Apostle's.

Rather, a successive line of people who trace their lineage back to the Apostles. Big difference!

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the argument of "Apostolic Succession" is all about? They don't say the exact word apostles, they say bishops, but they mean pretty much the same thing, only that the apostles were first, and had authority to write scripture itself, and bishops have all the same authority except that to write scripture essentially. This is what apostolic succession is about.....

Apostolic succession is the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be derived from the apostles by a continuous succession, which has usually been associated with a claim that the succession is through a series of bishops.[1] This series was seen originally as that of the bishops of a particular see founded by one or more of the apostles, but it is generally understood today as meaning a series of bishops, regardless of see, each consecrated by other bishops themselves consecrated similarly in a succession going back to the apostles.[2] Christians of theRoman Catholic, Orthodox, Old Catholic, Anglican, Moravian, and Scandinavian Lutheran traditions maintain that "a bishop cannot have regular or valid orders unless he has been consecrated in this apostolic succession."[3]
Apostolic succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what is meant by Apostolic succesion

Apostolic succession "may also be understood as a continuity in doctrinal teaching from the time of the apostles to the present."[4] For example, the British Methodist Conference locates the "true continuity" with the Church of past ages in "the continuity of Christian experience, the fellowship in the gift of the one Spirit; in the continuity in the allegiance to one Lord, the continued proclamation of the message; the continued acceptance of the mission;..."[5]
Apostolic succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctrine is contained in scripture, which is a complete work in what we have in the bible. If we are not teaching what the apostles originally taught and recorded for us, then we are not teaching or preaching the word of God. All believers believe this, so it's not really worth calling it apostolic succession.

Those who hold for the importance of apostolic succession via episcopal laying on of hands appeal to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothyand Titus, for example). They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially theEpistle of Clement.[6] In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in this way. Further, proponents of the necessity of the personal apostolic succession of bishops within the Church point to the universal practice of the undivided early Church (up to AD 431), before being divided into the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodox Church and theCatholic Church.

Some Protestants deny the need for this type of continuity[1][7] and the historical claims involved have been severely questioned; Eric Jay comments that the account given of the emergence of the episcopate in chapter III of the encyclical Lumen Gentium (1964) "is very sketchy, and many ambiguities in the early history of the Christian ministry are passed over"[8]

But, as I was saying before, I am curious where you get this doctrine from. There are scriptures one could presumptuously say have to do with this, but I see no place that really says this type of thing in any way.

I think you are so opposed to this idea because you are setting it up as a straw man.

I'm opposed to it because it goes beyond what is written in scripture. I'm not setting up a straw man, I'm stating what is believed by those who use the word's apostolic succession as it is generally understood. If you don't believe these things, and you just believe that believers have been taught by other believers throughout the centuries then I think you believe what all believers believe. I wouldn't call it apostolic succession though, unless you are intentionally trying to confuse people.

I'm kind of confused because what you have been saying about this topic over the last month or two seems to be changing, and I am not quite sure what you believe, only that many of the things you have said don't seem to have any scriptural basis, whether you still believe them now or not.

Blessings,

Travis

 

[Christ4Ever]

My concern with a lot of this is that many believers in Christ, or professing Christians, are relying upon books written by mere humans as their foundation for their faith, and many are not being discerning at all concerning error and deception, and that is primarily, I believe, because they are reading books in place of scripture, or they are relying on these authors to teach scripture accurately, but they are not testing what they read and hear against scripture to make sure that what they are reading and are believing is actually what the Bible teaches. Many people just accept whatever humans tell them is truth because it sounds good to them, but they are not students of the Word of God, and so many of them are buying into lies, believing it is truth. Much of this is very subtle, and so we need to be students of the Word of God so that we can spot the deceptions so that we do not fall into the devil's trap and find ourselves among the deceived. Satan is very clever. He disguises himself as an angel of light, and he has many people working for him who disguise themselves as messengers of God, but what they are teaching, although it may have elements of truth, is a mixed bag of truth and lies, which is deception. I see so much of this, and I see so many Christians (or professing Christians) buying into these pretenders, and not checking out what they hear against the Word of Truth, and it just breaks my heart. So much deception! So many being deceived! And, so much of the church is teaching a gospel according to men, instead of the gospel of Jesus Christ, according to Christ and his NT apostles, who were the foundation for the church.

All I can say Dear Sister is AMEN!

Charles Spurgeon once said something about discernment which truly speaks to the deception that we are dealing with.

“Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is knowing the difference between right and almost right.”

Sadly, I am moving away from the thread theme and for that I apologize.
I really just wanted to say. Thank-you for sharing your thoughts. Much insight has been provided.
God Bless.
YBIC
C4E
<><

 

[Travis]

Ephesians 4
6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:​

The Lord is the giver of gifts, and some of those gifts are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. God calls and equips such men. He doesn't need men to do so for him.

Paul is a perfect example. Paul may have learned things from other men, but his doctrine, as a whole was not from men, but directly from the Lord Jesus Christ. He was not with the other apostles or with the Lord while he was in his earthly body here on earth, yet most of the New Testament epistles from which we get our teaching are written by him.

Galatians 1
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.​

One may say that church history teaches some form of apostolic succession... and it may seem to in some ways... I don't know. I don't get my doctrine from church history though, I get it from the scriptures to the extent that the Spirit of God has revealed it to me, and the scriptures do not teach apostolic succession.

Blessings to all,

Travis

 

[Sue J Love]

All I can say Dear Sister is AMEN!

Charles Spurgeon once said something about discernment which truly speaks to the deception that we are dealing with.

“Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is knowing the difference between right and almost right.”

Sadly, I am moving away from the thread theme and for that I apologize.
I really just wanted to say. Thank-you for sharing your thoughts. Much insight has been provided.
God Bless.
YBIC
C4E
<><

Christ4Ever, Thank you for sharing these thoughts with me. All glory to God. Praise his holy name!

The thread theme is essentially testing what is being taught by various people, or groups of people, to see whether or not it is based in truth, and if not, then we have to discard it, whether the subject is apostolic succession or any other teaching, so you are just fine in what you said. Part of that thread theme is also discernment. Whenever we hear someone teaching anything, especially if it seems foreign to us, as this was to me, we need to test it and we need to be discerning, as you said, not concerning so much the obvious differences between right and wrong, though we must do that, too, but concerning what is right and what has the appearance of being right, as so much deception is subtle and thus requires spiritual discernment, because a surface read may not get one to the truth of what is truly being said.

For instance, one of the tricks I have noticed with these deceivers is that they will insert scripture in their texts but then never really talk about what the scriptures mean, which they have usually taken out of context. Yet, the presence of scripture gives the allusion that what is being said is of God and that if fits with the scripture when many times it has nothing to do with God or with scripture. Yet, the purpose of the presence of scripture is to give the false impression that what is being discussed is biblical. To those who are not discerning end up buying into the lie, which often times is just a bunch of psychobabble.

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the argument of "Apostolic Succession" is all about? They don't say the exact word apostles, they say bishops, but they mean pretty much the same thing, only that the apostles were first, and had authority to write scripture itself, and bishops have all the same authority except that to write scripture essentially. This is what apostolic succession is about.....

You will notice that in the definition you provided, nothing is said about Apostles being replaced by other Apostles. You will notice that the office of Bishop is in the Bible. Bishop is not the same as Apostle. NO one is claiming that Bishops are Apostles.


Doctrine is contained in scripture, which is a complete work in what we have in the bible. If we are not teaching what the apostles originally taught and recorded for us, then we are not teaching or preaching the word of God. All believers believe this, so it's not really worth calling it apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession is not the belief that we should believe in the doctrines of the Apostles. Apostolic succession is the belief that it is beneficial to have your Pastor personally selected and trained by someone who was themselves personally selected and trained by the Apostles.

But, as I was saying before, I am curious where you get this doctrine from. There are scriptures one could presumptuously say have to do with this, but I see no place that really says this type of thing in any way.

This is not a doctrine. It is just common sense. Lets say you own a business. Before you leave the business you pick your best employee and train him to do your job. And you instruct him to do the same thing. Doesn't that make any sense to you? Of course, this is no guarantee that your business will always be run exactly as you wanted it to, or that another business wont come around and be more closely related to your original business. But it's still wise and good and proper and beneficial!!! That is all that Apostolic succession is.

I'm opposed to it because it goes beyond what is written in scripture. I'm not setting up a straw man, I'm stating what is believed by those who use the word's apostolic succession as it is generally understood. If you don't believe these things, and you just believe that believers have been taught by other believers throughout the centuries then I think you believe what all believers believe. I wouldn't call it apostolic succession though, unless you are intentionally trying to confuse people.

I'm kind of confused because what you have been saying about this topic over the last month or two seems to be changing, and I am not quite sure what you believe, only that many of the things you have said don't seem to have any scriptural basis, whether you still believe them now or not.

Blessings,

Travis

Travis, I am merely doing my duty, as an unworthy servant of Christ, to judge a righteous judgment.

 

[Travis]

When I stated earlier that apostolic succession is apostles selecting other apostles I was making a judgement on what is taught.

This teaching, which is not found in scripture, makes a direct line of apostolic authority passed down from one man to another, and that man then has the ability to pass it down. It puts them all on the same level. The only difference between the original apostle and the men down the line afterwords, is that the original apostles established the teaching, and those afterwords continue to teach the same thing without adding to it. Otherwise, what this false doctrine teaches, is that they are essentially one and the same. That is why I choose to refer to them all as apostles. Even though the wording people choose to use doesn't say this, because they would obviously be rejected outright if they did, this is what is really being taught. I was making a point, which seems to have clearly been missed.

Taylor you are nit picking over semantics to avoid the real issue, which is that you are promoting a doctrine which has no real scriptural basis, which you even seem to admit. Yet you persist in it and don't seem to have any desire to change your mind.

This, along with your promotion of Roman Catholicism are really disturbing. This doctrine we are talking about here is inherently linked to the Roman Catholic church, even though others believe similar things as well.

I noticed you did not respond to anything I said regarding Paul.

Doctrinal teaching is not about what seems good, or sounds good. It's about what is written. It's about not going beyond that either. This doctrine you promote is used to justify men lording authority over others in an ingodly manner. I really wish you would stop being hard headed and actually listen, your way off, and it's kind of scary honestly.

We don't need men called by men, we need God called men. That's it. Trusting in some apostolic line of succession is trusting in men, plain and simple. Nothing in scripture says that this Method is God's way of sustaining the church. In fact it says much otherwise, much of which has been pointed out.

Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD. - Jeremiah 17:5​

It's easy to miss the forest for the trees.

It honestly scares me that I don't think you can be reached on this. I don't feel like anything i could say could break through how hard your heart is on this subject and others. This is not in any way fellowship at all, and is not edifying to anyone. I guess I'll just pray for you.

Blessings,

Travis

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

I have a very positive attitude toward the early church, this is true. The early church was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, in fact it was both catholic and orthodox.

I trust that God was working in the early church in order to develop and maintain the scriptures and important doctrines. It was God who worked in that early church to put the Bible together, and to establish the doctrine of the Trinity.

There are certain doctrines which you might take for granted, for example the doctrine that Christ is fully man and fully God. It was not human flesh that came up with that doctrine, it was God working in the early church.

Here, I made a video on this subject of Apostolic succession. Hopefully it will comfort your heart.

 

[Bendito]

Not sure where to place this, but I was wondering if any of you knew anything about this subject. I just became aware of this yesterday, so it is new to me. I did some research on it yesterday, but if you have anything to share with me on this subject, I would appreciate your input. Thanks.

Just as some are called today to be preachers or evangelists, some are called to be healers or teachers,or prophets or apostles....emissaries...special messengers. Its a calling of God on a person even today. Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
The apostles did not die out when John went home.

 

[Sue J Love]

Just as some are called today to be preachers or evangelists, some are called to be healers or teachers,or prophets or apostles....emissaries...special messengers. Its a calling of God on a person even today. Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
The apostles did not die out when John went home.

Bendito, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this subject.

 

[Curtis]

Not sure where to place this, but I was wondering if any of you knew anything about this subject. I just became aware of this yesterday, so it is new to me. I did some research on it yesterday, but if you have anything to share with me on this subject, I would appreciate your input. Thanks.

There are four different "types" of Apostles written about in scripture.
(1) Jesus Christ was an Apostle. Jesus was a one of a kind Apostle as God gave him the Spirit without "measure".

Heb 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,

Apostle meaning "one who is sent, a messenger". Jesus was sent, and a messenger of God to proclaim the Gospel to men. Jesus operated in all five "ministry" gifts as a Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor and teacher.

(2) The second type of apostle are the "Apostles of the Lamb". The twelve Apostles are in a class of their own. No one else can ever be a Apostle of the Lamb.

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

These twelve Apostles were sent for to be eyewitnesses of Jesus life, earthly ministry, and resurrection. Their main purpose was to be ministers of the Gospel. They were the first to preach, and teach the Word of God.
The Apostle Paul would not qualify to be one of these Apostles as he did not follow Jesus from the start to the end of his earthly ministry. There have been around twenty people in the Bible that have been called "Apostles", or "sent ones", but only the original twelve are considered an Apostles of the Lamb. There are only twelve foundations that support the heavenly city, not 13 or 14....ect

(3) The third type of Apostle would be the Apostle Paul, who helped lay the "doctrinal" foundation of the New Testament. Paul wrote about half of the New Testament, and the revelations he taught did not come from man.

Eph 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote a fore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

The Apostle Paul preached the "revelation" of the Gospel to the early Church saints. We do not need to lay any other foundation which is already laid for us, we are only to build upon that foundation!!

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

The Apostle Paul tell us this.....

1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

There are no NEW revelations being given to the Church as a "foundation". Paul warned the Church that "we are to take heed to how we build upon that which has already been laid". Even though there are no new revelations as foundations to the Church today, there are new revelations about this foundation which we have already been given in scripture.

(4) The fourth type of Apostle is the what we have today in the Church. They are sent ones, and their apostleship is in a measure unlike other foundational apostles like the original twelve, and the apostle Paul who laid the very foundation of the Gospel. Epaphroditus was called a "messenger" by Paul. The word, "messenger" means "Apostle". Epaphroditus was not an Apostle in the same sense as Paul or the other twelve apostles were. He was "sent"out as a delegate, or representative, or as the commissioned representative of a congregation.
Today's Apostles are commissioned by the Holy Spirit to bring a specific message or ministry along certain scriptural lines to the Body of Christ. They simply build upon the foundation that has already been laid.
One of the most notable signs of a Apostle is their anointing to teach, and preach the Word of God, and to start or plant new Churches.

 

[Bendito]

There are four different "types" of Apostles written about in scripture.
(1) Jesus Christ was an Apostle. Jesus was a one of a kind Apostle as God gave him the Spirit without "measure".

Heb 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,

Apostle meaning "one who is sent, a messenger". Jesus was sent, and a messenger of God to proclaim the Gospel to men. Jesus operated in all five "ministry" gifts as a Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor and teacher.

(2) The second type of apostle are the "Apostles of the Lamb". The twelve Apostles are in a class of their own. No one else can ever be a Apostle of the Lamb.

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

These twelve Apostles were sent for to be eyewitnesses of Jesus life, earthly ministry, and resurrection. Their main purpose was to be ministers of the Gospel. They were the first to preach, and teach the Word of God.
The Apostle Paul would not qualify to be one of these Apostles as he did not follow Jesus from the start to the end of his earthly ministry. There have been around twenty people in the Bible that have been called "Apostles", or "sent ones", but only the original twelve are considered an Apostles of the Lamb. There are only twelve foundations that support the heavenly city, not 13 or 14....ect

(3) The third type of Apostle would be the Apostle Paul, who helped lay the "doctrinal" foundation of the New Testament. Paul wrote about half of the New Testament, and the revelations he taught did not come from man.

Eph 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote a fore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

The Apostle Paul preached the "revelation" of the Gospel to the early Church saints. We do not need to lay any other foundation which is already laid for us, we are only to build upon that foundation!!

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

The Apostle Paul tell us this.....

1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

There are no NEW revelations being given to the Church as a "foundation". Paul warned the Church that "we are to take heed to how we build upon that which has already been laid". Even though there are no new revelations as foundations to the Church today, there are new revelations about this foundation which we have already been given in scripture.

(4) The fourth type of Apostle is the what we have today in the Church. They are sent ones, and their apostleship is in a measure unlike other foundational apostles like the original twelve, and the apostle Paul who laid the very foundation of the Gospel. Epaphroditus was called a "messenger" by Paul. The word, "messenger" means "Apostle". Epaphroditus was not an Apostle in the same sense as Paul or the other twelve apostles were. He was "sent"out as a delegate, or representative, or as the commissioned representative of a congregation.
Today's Apostles are commissioned by the Holy Spirit to bring a specific message or ministry along certain scriptural lines to the Body of Christ. They simply build upon the foundation that has already been laid.
One of the most notable signs of a Apostle is their anointing to teach, and preach the Word of God, and to start or plant new Churches.

If the word apostle means 'emissary' or 'one who is sent' then all of us born again Christians are apostles. We have a specific message, and if we will believe God's Word, miracles follow our preaching of the Word. As you say Curtis, we build on the foundation already laid. All we have to do is to obey our Father's Word. We are anointed with the same anointing that God gave to Jesus, and we are to carry the same message, in the same way.

 

[Curtis]

If the word apostle means 'emissary' or 'one who is sent' then all of us born again Christians are apostles. We have a specific message, and if we will believe God's Word, miracles follow our preaching of the Word. As you say Curtis, we build on the foundation already laid. All we have to do is to obey our Father's Word. We are anointed with the same anointing that God gave to Jesus, and we are to carry the same message, in the same way.

Well, yes, and no. Surely we are all called to proclaim the Gospel, but there are ministry gifts that carry a specific anointing. We can all teach someone the Word, but that does not make us a ministry gift as a teacher. We can all prophesy one by one, but that does not make us a prophet. The Apostle is usually sent by a local Church to either start other Church(s) or proclaim a specific message to a group(s) of people. It is interesting that the five fold ministry gifts are given until a certain time when the Church becomes "perfect" which means "mature". I do not believe the brick and motor Church was designed to spend your entire life sitting in the same pew until you die. I think the progression is that once you become "mature" you go out, share what you know with others, who in turn do the same. I think the problem we are now experiencing is that the Church has been teaching the "elementary" things of God, and not strong meat to where the Church can become mature.

 

[Bendito]

Well, yes, and no. Surely we are all called to proclaim the Gospel, but there are ministry gifts that carry a specific anointing. We can all teach someone the Word, but that does not make us a ministry gift as a teacher. We can all prophesy one by one, but that does not make us a prophet. The Apostle is usually sent by a local Church to either start other Church(s) or proclaim a specific message to a group(s) of people. It is interesting that the five fold ministry gifts are given until a certain time when the Church becomes "perfect" which means "mature". I do not believe the brick and motor Church was designed to spend your entire life sitting in the same pew until you die. I think the progression is that once you become "mature" you go out, share what you know with others, who in turn do the same. I think the problem we are now experiencing is that the Church has been teaching the "elementary" things of God, and not strong meat to where the Church can become mature.

Well I won't argue that except for one point. The calling is from God not a church group, as to mature church groups or Christians maturing in a church.....Well....I've seen too many church groups elevating new Christians to positions of deacon or some such in the assembly. They called it 'Deacon in training' This is totally wrong and disallows many to grow or to take their position. But then...my view of organized church can be somewhat skewed by bad experiences.

 

[Curtis]

Well I won't argue that except for one point. The calling is from God not a church group, as to mature church groups or Christians maturing in a church.....Well....I've seen too many church groups elevating new Christians to positions of deacon or some such in the assembly. They called it 'Deacon in training' This is totally wrong and disallows many to grow or to take their position. But then...my view of organized church can be somewhat skewed by bad experiences.

Bother, I have my entire Christian life stayed away from the "organised" Church. After almost 40 years the Lord led me to a small local Church here in Apple Valley, where I believe the teaching is right on. The pastor is a woman, who took over my from her Mother that died a couple years ago. Her dad was the pastor for many years before that. I have no problem with women pastors, or teachers as I know what the Word of God says about that.
A person called to be a Apostle, or any ministry by God would certainly be "confirmed" by another person(s) so they would be confident of what they are doing is from the Lord. I tell every one who asks, if someone tells you they have a "word" from God for them, it should only be a confirmation of what they already know. If not do not ever believe it.