authority of the Apostles

[exiled]

I’ve heard it said from some Bible Christians that the Apostles are the only ones who had infallible authority, and that it was not passed on, etc. etc.
Additionally, the reason they had this authority is that they were specifically chosen, and the eyewitnesses to Christ’s life, death and resurrection. If there is another reason they had such authority I don’t know what it is.
Anyway, I’m sure this has been answered somewhere else, but I’ve not run across it.
If the Apostles are the only humans that had any infallible authority to speak for Christ while they established the church, why are the books of Luke and Mark accepted? It is my understanding that both Luke and Mark are 3rd hand accounts, so by what authority do they write infallibly/inerrantly?

 

[bengal_fan]

I’ve heard it said from some Bible Christians that the Apostles are the only ones who had infallible authority, and that it was not passed on, etc. etc.
Additionally, the reason they had this authority is that they were specifically chosen, and the eyewitnesses to Christ’s life, death and resurrection. If there is another reason they had such authority I don’t know what it is.
Anyway, I’m sure this has been answered somewhere else, but I’ve not run across it.
If the Apostles are the only humans that had any infallible authority to speak for Christ while they established the church, why are the books of Luke and Mark accepted? It is my understanding that both Luke and Mark are 3rd hand accounts, so by what authority do they write infallibly/inerrantly?

your understanding would be incorrect. Mark is basically Peter’s account (Mark spent significant time with Peter) and Luke’s accounts (both his gospel and the book of Acts) are basically firsthand accounts from Paul. the real argument you should use is why is Paul considered infallible? he was not an eyewitness but was approved by the other apostles (especially Peter) as an apostle so obviously the apostolic authority could be passed on.