mondar wrote:
Not all the twelve were, as I call them, writing apostles whose letters ended up in the NT - those whose writings did were Matthew, John, Peter and James. Of the remainder some have non canonical works attributed to them eg gospel according to Thomas, and Barnabus... Of the other NT writers Paul, Mark and Luke - (only Paul I think?) was called an apostle.
The reference in Ephesians simply mentions apostles and prophets - but does not name them. I would disagree with you on this point and say that any 'apostle and prophet' is qualified to lay the foundation of the church but I do not assume that they all did. I would also say Barnabus was voted in (by lot) by the original 11 remaining apostles into the circle of 12 of which Paul, though an apostle par excellance, was not. Remember that Moses was not allowed to set foot into the promised land - God is not a respecter of persons.
I don't doubt that a person can be sent by Jesus Christ for the purpose of special revelation (scripture), an example being the apostle John. Nor do I assume that all revelation is written down, and not all revelation is intended for the Canon.
I appreciate what you are saying and have a similar background. Since you are a Calvinist at least be aware that Calvin himself believed that God could raise up a prophet in special circumstances though he was basically a cessationist. This begs the question as to what such a prophet would say? Then there are the two prophets of Rev 11 - follow this one over the coming years in your church and see how a cessationist theology affects interpretation. Its not a question of changing beliefs but seeing how the arguments are constructed and evaluated and what assumptions are brought to scripture that affect interpretation. Thanks again.
take care
This is going to get into the term "apostle." In the NT not all apostles were the same. The 12 had special memories to remember the word's of Jesus Christ (John 14:26). The 12 have special privelages in that they will someday sit on 12 thrones and rule the 12 tribes. Barnabas was an apostle, but was not in this category of apostles, he was not one of the 12. The 12 gave us our special revelation. When Ephesians talks about the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the Church, it is not referring to Barnabas, but to the 12 and Paul.
Not all the twelve were, as I call them, writing apostles whose letters ended up in the NT - those whose writings did were Matthew, John, Peter and James. Of the remainder some have non canonical works attributed to them eg gospel according to Thomas, and Barnabus... Of the other NT writers Paul, Mark and Luke - (only Paul I think?) was called an apostle.
The reference in Ephesians simply mentions apostles and prophets - but does not name them. I would disagree with you on this point and say that any 'apostle and prophet' is qualified to lay the foundation of the church but I do not assume that they all did. I would also say Barnabus was voted in (by lot) by the original 11 remaining apostles into the circle of 12 of which Paul, though an apostle par excellance, was not. Remember that Moses was not allowed to set foot into the promised land - God is not a respecter of persons.
The term apostle means "sent one." A person can be sent by Jesus Christ for the purpose of special revelation. This would violate the concept of sola scriptura. The concept of a missionary being a sent one by a Church does not have the concept of special revelation. That would not be a violation of sola scriptura.
I don't doubt that a person can be sent by Jesus Christ for the purpose of special revelation (scripture), an example being the apostle John. Nor do I assume that all revelation is written down, and not all revelation is intended for the Canon.
I (and the church I attend) would deny further revelation beyond the scripture. So then, in that sense of the word, we do not have apostles and prophets. We have the scriptures, and it is sufficient, and the only inerrant source for our faith and practice.
I appreciate what you are saying and have a similar background. Since you are a Calvinist at least be aware that Calvin himself believed that God could raise up a prophet in special circumstances though he was basically a cessationist. This begs the question as to what such a prophet would say? Then there are the two prophets of Rev 11 - follow this one over the coming years in your church and see how a cessationist theology affects interpretation. Its not a question of changing beliefs but seeing how the arguments are constructed and evaluated and what assumptions are brought to scripture that affect interpretation. Thanks again.
take care