Testing Someone's Call To Apostleship (For Esaias)

[votivesoul]

Based on comments I made below, Esaias responded with some questions, also given below. This post serves to address those questions.

Originally Posted by votivesoul
By no means. But here's the kicker: Anyone can presume anything about their calling and authority, even if such presumptions are not true. Doesn't stop them from saying things they shouldn't say, or doing things they shouldn't do. Nor does it stop anyone from buying into the presumptions, as offered to everyone else.

The Ephesians put to the test those who said they were apostles, and Christ commended them for it. I know someone who thinks he is called to be an apostle and prophet, but has no signs, wonders, or diverse miracles backing him up to cause anyone with any real knowledge of Holy Scripture to think of him as such. His understanding of the Word is biased and in some places flimsy, yet it doesn't stop him from playing the "God told me" card. And he certainly won't submit to being tested by a local assembly.

So, my point in my previous post is this: The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. Paul dealt with a lot of talkers, especially by the Corinthians. And by dealing with them, I mean to say, he went straight to Corinth to see their display of power.

Without a display of Holy Spirit power, no one is qualified to enforce anything, regardless of what they say, or how they claim otherwise. The power of God comes with Apostolic and Prophetic calling. Until the power is demonstrated, no one can accurately claim to be either, therefore, they have no right to be the enforcer of anything, as the foundation of the church is not built upon them, but upon others.


1. How would this test be performed today?

2. Have you or anyone you know ever performed this test? How'd it turn out?

3. Have you or anyone you know been given this test by another? How'd it turn out?

Answers below...

[votivesoul]

1. How would this test be performed today?

The same way it was performed in the 1st century.

To begin, a local assembly and its elders need to have a firm grasp of what it means to be an apostle.

There are three primary functions of an apostle. They are:

1.) Bear witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, with signs following.
2.) Give themselves to prayer and the Word
3.) Be the foundation, along with prophets, with Jesus being the cornerstone, of the Body of Christ

To test a person to see if they are an apostle, especially if one is claiming to be one, a local church should listen and examine his testimony of the resurrection. Does it produce faith in the hearers? Are there signs, wonders, and diverse miracles following the proclamation that Christ was raised from the dead, to prove to the hearers that:

A.) Jesus really did rise from the dead, and
B.) That the man proclaiming it is Christ's designated, commissioned emissary to tell the world that it is so (the signs, and etc. validate the designating and commissioning as being of and from the Lord)

Next, see what the person claiming apostleship's prayer life is like. When he lays hands on a person and prays for them, does God actually answer him?

Consider Simon Peter and John going to Samaria to pray that they would receive the Holy Spirit, with the laying on of hands. As soon as they prayed, the Lord immediately answered them and filled the Samaritans with the Holy Spirit.

While it may not always or only be in regards to people receiving the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is the proof of Jesus being raised from the dead, it stands to very good reason that God pours out His Spirit whenever and wherever an apostle is, to save souls and validate His chosen vessel.

After this, examine His Word ministry. How accurate is His understanding of the Gospel? Does he have a firm grasp on the doctrines of Christ?

A man who misuses the Word is never going to be invited into Apostleship by the Lord. I'm not talking about the occasional mistakes that even James said everyone makes (See James 3:1-3). I'm talking about a clear lack of proficiency in the Word. If such exists, then a man can be disqualified from being received as an apostle in or by a local assembly.

Lastly, does the man lay a proper foundation for the church? This is multi-vaceted, but mostly deals with evangelism, indoctrination, discipline, promotion, polity, and overseership. A true apostle will, by the grace of God, be able to lay the correction foundation in those he wins and serves.

If a local assembly is improperly founded by a person claiming to be an apostle, it stands to good reason that he isn't what he claims to be.

So, these are the basic tests, as I see them:

1.) Testimony of the Resurrection
Signs, wonders, and diverse miracles
Outpouring of the Holy Spirit

2.) Prayer life
Consistently answered and affirmed by the Lord

3.) Word ministry
Accuracy and faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures
Integrity, i.e. no extra-Biblical revelations, no vaunting of self, and etc.

4.) Ability to found a church on Jesus Christ and His doctrines
The Gospel, Hebrews 6:1-3, Church leadership and growth, etc.

All of these things ought to be examined if and when a local church receives a person claiming to be an apostle.

[votivesoul]

2. Have you or anyone you know ever performed this test? How'd it turn out?

Not in any formal way. Whenever I see or hear of someone claiming to be an apostle, I run the test over in my mind to see, for myself, what I think about the person's alleged apostleship.

I've met and known only one person whom I would say, without a doubt, was called to be an apostle. I've heard of others who I personally think are apostles, although that number is small.

I've never been a part of a local assembly that had a need to put anyone to the test in this way. The closest thing was a man highly regarded as a prophet. The leadership (me included) were listening very closely to everything he said, and we paid very close attention to everything he did, and maybe it was just an off night, but his alleged gifting didn't serve him well, to say the least.

[votivesoul]

3. Have you or anyone you know been given this test by another? How'd it turn out?

There were certain considerations about me and my ministry at a former assembly, that mirrored some of what I've written above, but not all.

Otherwise, the answer to the third question is "no", except to say that I put everyone I meet through this test. Or at least, everyone thought of as a minister of the Gospel. This includes people I know personally.

But again, it's all been very informal. Nothing official. I do it for my own personal knowledge, to try and gauge when and where a true apostolic ministry may exist, so I can get behind it.

[Esaias]

Wait. You say there was a 'test' and it was done a certain way in the first century, yet you say you have never given the test to anyone, you just 'run it through your mind'. And then you say 'I put everyone I meet through this test'????

Something doesn't add up. Not sure why this is over here in the Deep Waters section either, not many people bother with this area, as opposed to the Fellowship Hall.

[Esphes45]

Based on comments I made below, Esaias responded with some questions, also given below. This post serves to address those questions.






Answers below...

I don't think this test is scripturally accurate.

4.) Ability to found a church on Jesus Christ and His doctrines

The Gospel, Hebrews 6:1-3, Church leadership and growth, etc.

If my memory serves me correct, there is no proof in the bible that all the apostles in the bible had a "church".

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Esphes45]

Another thing. What would separate an Apostle from a Pastor? Or is a Pastor an Apostle?

[votivesoul]

Wait. You say there was a 'test' and it was done a certain way in the first century, yet you say you have never given the test to anyone, you just 'run it through your mind'. And then you say 'I put everyone I meet through this test'????

Something doesn't add up. Not sure why this is over here in the Deep Waters section either, not many people bother with this area, as opposed to the Fellowship Hall.

1.) I'm saying that in the first century, the Ephesians put someone or a group to a test in order to determine his/their apostleship, according to Jesus in Revelation 2.

This proves a test exists.

2.) The test in question needs must relate to apostleship (as opposed to a different calling).

Therefore, the test by necessity would require an investigation into what it means to be an apostle, understanding how an apostle operates, and etc.

This requires specific Biblical knowledge. The Word (as it pertains to Apostles) is the litmus. And as it pertains to apostles, the Word has very specific information on what an apostle is and how an apostle functions.

The Scriptural testimony is that apostles bear record of the Resurrection (Acts 1:20-21). The Scriptural testimony is that apostles are given over to prayer and the Word (Acts 6:1-3). The Scriptural testimony is that apostles (along with prophets) are the foundation of the Church, Jesus being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-20).

Since these three key facts were firmly established early in the first century according to the Holy Scriptures, it stands to reason that when a man claimed to be an apostle, as someone must have done in Ephesus, that the elders and other leaders in Ephesus put the man or group to a test that pertained to the three main functions of an apostle.

There is no verse outlining this, specifically, as I'm sure we all know. So, perhaps the Ephesians did something differently, but I can't imagine what else it would have been. It reads quite clearly that they put those who claimed to be apostles to the test. The claimants were directly tested.

The reason I have personally have never, in any official capacity given the test to anyone is because I've never met anyone officially claiming to be an apostle. Had no one in Ephesus claimed apostleship, they would not have had any recourse to test anyone, either.

But if I should meet someone claiming apostleship, and this someone wants to be a part of my local assembly, or minister there for a time, I will strive to make sure that we officially put him to the above test.

The reason I wrote that I put everyone I meet through this test, is as it relates to an unofficial capacity. It's not something my local assembly has ever done, or indeed, any church I've been a part of. In this way, it's more a personal habit of mine.

Lastly, I put this here in the Deep Waters section because it's ministry related. I decided it would not be appropriate to derail the post in the Fellowship Hall more than it had already been. I don't really care how much publicity my posts get, in comparison to making sure I post in the correct area, per the guidelines.

[votivesoul]

I don't think this test is scripturally accurate.

In what way? I've given accurate Bible regarding the nature and function of an apostle, and shown from Scripture that in the 1st century, at least one local assembly had the ability to put someone or a group to a test to determine the validity of their apostleship, as seen in Revelation 2.

What's missing?

If the test I outlined isn't what the Ephesians in Revelation 2 used, what did they do, instead? Any ideas?

If my memory serves me correct, there is no proof in the bible that all the apostles in the bible had a "church".

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Paul founded several local assemblies which he called churches, chief among them, the churches in Galatia, and in Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, and Thessalonica.

It isn't to mean that he "had a church", like the way so many people today inaccurately say a pastor "has a church".

There is only one Body, the Church, but this one Body, the Church, has many, many local expressions, as saints in a community gather together to model the Body and her Christ, to each other and the world.

[votivesoul]

Another thing. What would separate an Apostle from a Pastor? Or is a Pastor an Apostle?

A pastor is not an apostle. The New Testament does a good job delineating the two, if by no other virtue than the terms are never used synomonously. A man may have an invitation by the Lord's grace to be both an apostle and a pastor, and in that way, there may seem to be some overlap, but the callings are not the same, especially if a man is only ever called to be one or the other (Simon Peter, for example, was both an Apostle and a Pastor. Paul of Tarsus was an Apostle [among other things] but not a pastor).

For example, do we read anywhere in the New Testament Scriptures the words "signs", "wonders", and/or "diverse miracles" with the word/term pastor?

Nope. Those words are only every associated with Jesus and the Apostles.

Pastors are called by grace to feed the Lord's sheep the sincere milk of the Word, and be examples to the flock, by inspecting and caring for God's people at the local level.

Most men today called pastors are not such, per se. They are more likely prophets and teachers (See Acts 13:1-3), i.e. they preach and expound/indoctrinate. And while apostles may preach and expound, it's really in the demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit where the line gets drawn.

I know many non-miracle working men and women who lovingly and faithfully support and relieve the Body through hospitality, prayer, and fellowship with Bible study. These people are shepherds, but not apostles.

(BTW, I refer to women pastors as those women who shepherd and shelter other women, i.e. the "aged women" of Titus 2).

[DPMartin]

Votivesoul

It seems you are looking for the ability to control and approve and disapprove someone who claims to be an apostle. You don’t decide who is or is going to be one by your own words, correct? Then surly you don’t get say on who isn’t. Granted a group of believers may or may not treat or accept someone who is or is not a apostle, but it seems you have no faith that those who know the Lord God and walk with the Lord God, can discern this matter.

One’s faith is upheld by the Presence of the Lord with them, not of their own strength. That said one should understand birds of a feather. Those who have the authority to promote will promote those like themselves. In the context of your posting it is the Lord Jesus that has the authority to promote those like Himself, but who acknowledges that authority in this world?

So even in the context of Paul and those who would trust Paul rather then another. They trust Paul because Paul shows he knows the same God they know. Those who don’t know the God of Paul the Apostle will go after their own judgement of what is good for themselves, in the name of the same God without knowing the same God.

It seems you want what the Prophets of old wanted. Well take note that the Lord walked with them and never really changed to situation around them in the Israel they loved. And Israel was God’s People and nation just as the church belongs to God, right? Remember the same crucified Christ so what kind of disregard are they going to have for those who walk with Him?

The demonstration of power, hence obvious Presence of God with someone is God’s will and no one else’s. The pharisees wanted Jesus to get off the cross as proof. The bottom line is those that the Lord God has written the law in their hearts will follow the fulfillment of, which is Christ.

[thephnxman]

In what way? I've given accurate Bible regarding the nature and function of an apostle, and shown from Scripture that in the 1st century, at least one local assembly had the ability to put someone or a group to a test to determine the validity of their apostleship, as seen in Revelation 2.

If the test I outlined isn't what the Ephesians in Revelation 2 used, what did they do, instead? Any ideas?

Paul founded several local assemblies which he called churches, chief among them, the churches in Galatia, and in Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, and Thessalonica.

Instead of "test", I would use "prove" or "examine" them.

(1) The first proof of a disciple, believer, or Minister, is the gospel.
It is NOT just believing in God, or Jesus, etc. It is believing and KNOWING
the gospel that saves: the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus;
(2) Next, the "calling" must be discerned through the Holy Spirit, by
the presbytery;
(3) He will exercise at least one gift, preferably two, of the gifts of
the Spirit: displaying a "double portion";
(4) an apostle must be SENT by the Holy Spirit to a specific region;
(5) he will walk in the manifestation and power of the Holy Spirit.

Paul was first a preacher; then a teacher; and finally, an apostle.

[votivesoul]

Votivesoul

It seems you are looking for the ability to control and approve and disapprove someone who claims to be an apostle. You don’t decide who is or is going to be one by your own words, correct? Then surly you don’t get say on who isn’t. Granted a group of believers may or may not treat or accept someone who is or is not a apostle, but it seems you have no faith that those who know the Lord God and walk with the Lord God, can discern this matter.

One’s faith is upheld by the Presence of the Lord with them, not of their own strength. That said one should understand birds of a feather. Those who have the authority to promote will promote those like themselves. In the context of your posting it is the Lord Jesus that has the authority to promote those like Himself, but who acknowledges that authority in this world?

So even in the context of Paul and those who would trust Paul rather then another. They trust Paul because Paul shows he knows the same God they know. Those who don’t know the God of Paul the Apostle will go after their own judgement of what is good for themselves, in the name of the same God without knowing the same God.

It seems you want what the Prophets of old wanted. Well take note that the Lord walked with them and never really changed to situation around them in the Israel they loved. And Israel was God’s People and nation just as the church belongs to God, right? Remember the same crucified Christ so what kind of disregard are they going to have for those who walk with Him?

The demonstration of power, hence obvious Presence of God with someone is God’s will and no one else’s. The pharisees wanted Jesus to get off the cross as proof. The bottom line is those that the Lord God has written the law in their hearts will follow the fulfillment of, which is Christ.

It's not about control, it's about protection, for the saints, who are given by God the charismata and the ministry, to do just that, from grievous wolves and others who would not spare the flock.

Those who are called and commissioned also need to be approved:

Romans 14:18

Romans 16:10

1 Corinthians 11:19

2 Corinthians 10:8

1 Thessalonians 2:4 (See, e.g. the NASB version)

2 Timothy 2:15

[thaddaeus417]

This depends on how you define Apostle, biblically, an apostle was someone who was involved with Jesus and/or knew of Jesus before and after His crucifixion.
•Acts 1:21-26, “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection. 23 And they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed, and said, You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
•1 Cor. 9:1, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?”

In Acts when the apostles are deciding on a replacement for Judas, Peter says it's necessary that the replacement have been with Jesus from the beginning and Paul defends his apostleship by claiming to have seen the risen Lord. Biblically, to be a true apostle it was required that the person had been with Christ and/or have seen the risen Lord.

Jesus appointed the apostles to do the founding work of the Church, and foundations only need to be laid once. After the apostles’ deaths, other offices besides apostleship, not requiring an eyewitness relationship with Jesus, would carry on the work.

[thephnxman]

This depends on how you define Apostle, biblically, an apostle was someone who was involved with Jesus and/or knew of Jesus before and after His crucifixion.
•Acts 1:21-26, “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection. 23 And they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed, and said, You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
•1 Cor. 9:1, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
In Acts when the apostles are deciding on a replacement for Judas, Peter says it's necessary that the replacement have been with Jesus from the beginning and Paul defends his apostleship by claiming to have seen the risen Lord. Biblically, to be a true apostle it was required that the person had been with Christ and/or have seen the risen Lord.
Jesus appointed the apostles to do the founding work of the Church, and foundations only need to be laid once. After the apostles’ deaths, other offices besides apostleship, not requiring an eyewitness relationship with Jesus, would carry on the work.

Good argument, but why the caveat?

As stated ("...and/or knew of Jesus before and after..."),
anyone today could be an apostle if they are called of the
Lord: which of itself is also true. For the Church both know
Him BEFORE (through the witnesses of the prophets), and
AFTER the resurrection (through the apostolic witnesses,
and that of the disciples, and the Holy Spirit).

Also, the Apostle Paul SAW the Lord after the resurrection,
although he was not with the other apostles at that time.
So what does it hinder the Lord to manifest/reveal Himself
today, to a man whom He would name an apostle?

[shazeep]

"Peter says it's necessary that the replacement have been with Jesus from the beginning"

[Esaias]

Acts 14:4 and 14 says Barnabas was an apostle.

1 Thessalonians 2:6 indicates Paul and Silas (Silvanus) were apostles (plural).

[thaddaeus417]

Acts 14:4 and 14 says Barnabas was an apostle.

1 Thessalonians 2:6 indicates Paul and Silas (Silvanus) were apostles (plural).

I just copied Barnes notes for you to be quick about it.

Acts 14:14 Which, when the apostles - Barnabas is called an apostle because he was sent forth by the church on a particular message (Acts 13:3; compare Acts 14:26), not because he had been chosen to the special work of the apostleship - to Dear witness to the life and resurrection of Christ.

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John - The words "beginning from" in the original refer to the Lord Jesus. The meaning may be thus expressed, "during all the time in which the Lord Jesus, beginning (his ministry) at the time when he was baptized by John, went in and out among us, until the time when he was taken up," etc. From those who had during that time been the constant companions of the Lord Jesus must one be taken, who would thus be a witness of his whole ministry.

Must one be ordained - It is fit or proper that one should be ordained. The reason of this was, that Jesus had originally chosen the number twelve for this work, and as one of them had fallen, it was proper that the vacancy should be filled by some person equally qualified for the office. The reason why it was proper that he should be taken from the seventy disciples was, that they had been particularly distinguished by Jesus himself, and had been witnesses of most of his public life, Luke 10:1-16. The word "ordained" with us has a fixed and definite signification. It means to set apart to a sacred office with proper forms and solemnities, commonly by the imposition of hands. But this is not, of necessity, the meaning of this passage. The Greek word usually denoting "ordination" is not used here. The expression is literally, "must one be, or become, γενέσθαι genesthai, a witness with us of his resurrection." The expression does not imply that he must be set apart in any particular manner, but simply that one should be designated or appointed for this specific purpose, to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ.

1 Thes 2:6 As the apostles of Christ - Though the writer uses the word apostles here in the plural number, it is not certain that he means to apply it to Silas and Timothy. He often uses the plural number where he refers to himself only; and though Silas and Timothy are joined with him in this Epistle 1 Thessalonians 1:1, yet it is evident that he writes the letter as if he were alone and that they had no part in the composition or the instructions. Timothy and Silas are associated with him for the mere purpose of salutation or kind remembrance. That this is so, is apparent from 1 Thessalonians 3:1-13. In 1 Thessalonians 3:1, Paul uses the plural term also. "When we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone; compare 1 Thessalonians 3:5. "For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith." Neither Silas nor Timothy were apostles in the strict and proper sense, and there is no evidence that they had the "authority" which Paul here says might have been exerted by an apostle of Christ.

I have noticed that is does seem to be popular right now to bestow upon ones self lofty titles such as Apostle and Prophet however there are no Apostles walking the earth right now nor are there any prophets like those of the old testament...

[shazeep]

amen.

[Esaias]

I just copied Barnes notes for you to be quick about it.

Acts 14:14 Which, when the apostles - Barnabas is called an apostle because he was sent forth by the church on a particular message (Acts 13:3; compare Acts 14:26), not because he had been chosen to the special work of the apostleship - to Dear witness to the life and resurrection of Christ.

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John - The words "beginning from" in the original refer to the Lord Jesus. The meaning may be thus expressed, "during all the time in which the Lord Jesus, beginning (his ministry) at the time when he was baptized by John, went in and out among us, until the time when he was taken up," eftc. From those who had during that time been the constant companions of the Lord Jesus must one be taken, who would thus be a witness of his whole ministry.

Must one be ordained - It is fit or proper that one should be ordained. The reason of this was, that Jesus had originally chosen the number twelve for this work, and as one of them had fallen, it was proper that the vacancy should be filled by some person equally qualified for the office. The reason why it was proper that he should be taken from the seventy disciples was, that they had been particularly distinguished by Jesus himself, and had been witnesses of most of his public life, Luke 10:1-16. The word "ordained" with us has a fixed and definite signification. It means to set apart to a sacred office with proper forms and solemnities, commonly by the imposition of hands. But this is not, of necessity, the meaning of this passage. The Greek word usually denoting "ordination" is not used here. The expression is literally, "must one be, or become, γενέσθαι genesthai, a witness with us of his resurrection." The expression does not imply that he must be set apart in any particular manner, but simply that one should be designated or appointed for this specific purpose, to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ.

1 Thes 2:6 As the apostles of Christ - Though the writer uses the word apostles here in the plural number, it is not certain that he means to apply it to Silas and Timothy. He often uses the plural number where he refers to himself only; and though Silas and Timothy are joined with him in this Epistle 1 Thessalonians 1:1, yet it is evident that he writes the letter as if he were alone and that they had no part in the composition or the instructions. Timothy and Silas are associated with him for the mere purpose of salutation or kind remembrance. That this is so, is apparent from 1 Thessalonians 3:1-13. In 1 Thessalonians 3:1, Paul uses the plural term also. "When we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone; compare 1 Thessalonians 3:5. "For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith." Neither Silas nor Timothy were apostles in the strict and proper sense, and there is no evidence that they had the "authority" which Paul here says might have been exerted by an apostle of Christ.

I have noticed that is does seem to be popular right now to bestow upon ones self lofty titles such as Apostle and Prophet however there are no Apostles walking the earth right now nor are there any prophets like those of the old testament...

I follow the Bible, not Barnes. Barnabus is called an apostle. Was he one of the Twelve? Of course not. But he was sent forth by the Lord, hence "apostle".

People today who title themselves "apostle" or "prophet" are usually money grubbers.

[thephnxman]

I follow the Bible, not Barnes. Barnabus is called an apostle. Was he one of the Twelve? Of course not. But he was sent forth by the Lord, hence "apostle".
People today who title themselves "apostle" or "prophet" are usually money grubbers.

Barnabus was, indeed, and apostle along with Saul of Tarsus
(who was later named Paul).