Lds claim that it is absolutely essential that the true church of christ have today twelve apostles

[dianaiad]

what makes an apostle an apostle? What made the Twelve different from other apostles? Do we need a Quorum of Twelve Apostles today? Why?

What makes an apostle…Jesus called twelve of 'em–for whatever reason. When one needed replacing (else there would be eleven) it was considered rather important to replace him. Later, there were other apostles called; they were leaders of the church, received revelation FOR the church (making them prophets, as well) and wrote scripture.

Since this is what those who were called apostles did…lead the church, received revelation and guided it, then I believe we can use those things as an at least partial definition of what one was. Since not all of them (Paul, for instance) knew Christ during His lifetime, then ‘witness to Jesus’ mortal ministry’ doesn’t seem to have been a requirement for the calling.

Since apostles WERE called after Jesus was crucified and resurrected, then obviously the early church had them, and thought that their presence was important. Since there is no scripture, writing or even hint of Sacred Tradition that there was a point at which apostles were no longer supposed to be called, or required, then it seems logical to suggest that, if there came a point when no more apostles showed up, it’s not because they weren’t supposed to—but rather because something went awry.

 

[Erich]

it is a most interesting idea, actually. Until I came on this board I wasn’t aware of the fact that Catholics hold their Sacred Tradition to be equal to scripture. It does provide a little irony to the whole criticism of continuing prophecy thing, though.

Scripture is a subset of Tradition. “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

What makes an apostle…Jesus called twelve of 'em–for whatever reason. When one needed replacing (else there would be eleven) it was considered rather important to replace him. Later, there were other apostles called; they were leaders of the church, received revelation FOR the church (making them prophets, as well) and wrote scripture.

Since this is what those who were called apostles did…lead the church, received revelation and guided it, then I believe we can use those things as an at least partial definition of what one was. Since not all of them (Paul, for instance) knew Christ during His lifetime, then ‘witness to Jesus’ mortal ministry’ doesn’t seem to have been a requirement for the calling.

Since apostles WERE called after Jesus was crucified and resurrected, then obviously the early church had them, and thought that their presence was important. Since there is no scripture, writing or even hint of Sacred Tradition that there was a point at which apostles were no longer supposed to be called, or required, then it seems logical to suggest that, if there came a point when no more apostles showed up, it’s not because they weren’t supposed to—but rather because something went awry.

Thanks for explaining.

Again, “witness to Jesus’ mortal ministry” isn’t considered as a requirement for all people called “apostles” in the Bible, but as a requirement for those considered to be part of the Twelve Apostles, distinguishing them from other apostles.

I also think it’s important to think about what the word “apostle” means and what distinguished those in the Twelve from those that were not in the Twelve, but were termed “apostles” in the Bible. Was there a difference? As Catholics, we have bishops, who are seen as the successors of the apostles. What makes the bishops different from the Twelve (when we say successors of the apostles, we mean the Twelve), but can they still be considered apostles? Again, my line of thinking is going back to what does the word “apostle” mean, and if there was a difference between the Twelve (including Judas’ replacement Matthias) and others called apostles. Is the Greek word “apostolos” from which the word “apostle” comes from, always translated as apostle in the Bible? I think that is very important as well.

How many replacements of the original Twelve were there?

 

[dianaiad]

Scripture is a subset of Tradition. “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

(grin)

No wonder the sola scripturians have angina attacks over you guys.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

(grin)

No wonder the sola scripturians have angina attacks over you guys.

The Sola Scripturians (may have to use that, thanks!) know that their position is unbiblical.

 

[dianaiad]

The Sola Scripturians (may have to use that, thanks!) know that their position is unbiblical.

You are quite welcome to use it…it ain’t mine.

But…if they knew that their position was unbiblical, they wouldn’t BE sola scripturians. Nice sentence to finish off the heart attack, though…

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

You are quite welcome to use it…it ain’t mine.

But…if they knew that their position was unbiblical, they wouldn’t BE sola scripturians. Nice sentence to finish off the heart attack, though…

True. Objectively (I always try to step back and observe, or at least try to!), if we knew that our own positions were wrong, we wouldn’t be who we are right now.

 

[dianaiad]

True. Objectively (I always try to step back and observe, or at least try to!), if we knew that our own positions were wrong, we wouldn’t be who we are right now.

One would certainly hope so. The word for those who stick around a belief system they believe to be false is not a nice one.

 

[Stephen168]

Jesus had an earthly ministry. During his ministry, he taught his disciple all they needed to know for salvation. Many of his disciples were called Apostles. The term ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon (the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot. Christ sent the Twelve (Matthew 10:5). Christ selected 70 more and they were sent (Luke 10:1). The Apostle James, the Righteous was an apostle but not one of the twelve (Gal 1:19). Mark and Luke the Evangelists are referred to as Apostles. By tradition, James, Luke, and Mark were members of the seventy. Paul and Barnabas were called Apostles (Acts 14:14). Barnabas was taught by the Twelve and was with Paul on his first journey. These Apostles are the witnesses and recorders of Christ’s earthly ministry. Most were witnesses to his resurrection.

Just as sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep; all the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

The only consistent meaning to being called ‘Apostle’ seems to be an Evangelist who was taught by Christ or The Twelve. The Twelve would pass from the earth by design. The title of Apostle would pass from the earth because The Twelve was not here to commission them. When Eusebius (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324) refers to an Apostle being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as Apostles. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops.

 

[Erich]

The term ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Jesus selected …
Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.

Correct!

What does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you? In fact, it goes without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself. The Eleven chose Matthias; Matthias did not choose himself.

The Gospel message and the necessary authority that accompanies its preaching was passed on from God to Jesus Christ, then to the Apostles. The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. This is the scriptural pattern, which is illustrated in great detail in By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors (a challenge which applies equally as well to LDS, btw).

 

[zerinus]

The LDS Church actually has 15 apostles. They claim that Peter, James, and John were the original “First Presidency”, with Peter as the Prophet, but today, the structure is changed, with the First Presidency existing outside of the Twelve, yet they are all apostles.

If it isn’t a change then what is it? Peter, James, and John were part of the Twelve, and are being called the “First Presidency”. Today, the “First Presidency” is not part of the Twelve in the Mormon Church. That is a change.

I’m not talking about that. What I said was that Peter, James, and John are called the first “First Presidency” and they were members of the Twelve, and never stopped being so. So, the First Presidency was within the Twelve. Currently, the “First Presidency” is outside of the Twelve. That is the change I am talking about.

That does not correctly state LDS doctrine. It is not revealed in LDS scripture that Peter, James, and John were the First Presidency in the early Christian church. I don’t know of any official proclamation by the Church to that effect either. Some individual authors may have speculated on that, but that was their opinions. It is not binding on the Church. Just because the Church has a First Presidency today, it does not mean that it should have had one then. The Twelve Apostles were perfectly capable of, and had the required keys to govern the church at that time without the First Presidency, as they do today.

The First Presidency is an ancient institution, and predates the the Twelve Apostles. It existed in ancient times, in the days of Adam and the ancient Patriarchs. You do not have to be an Apostle to be a member of the first Presidency. You have to be a high priest of the order of Melchizedek. The reason why they are Apostles today is because they have to rise through the ranks to get there; and rising through the ranks means being an Apostle for a period of time. It is like a stake president who has been a bishop for a time. He still remains a bishop even though he is now released from that calling and become a stake president.

Strictly speaking there aren’t 15 Apostles, but Twelve. The Twelve form a quorum whose membership cannot exceed 12. The First Presidency although they are Apostles, are not members of that quorum. They form their own quorum of the First Presidency, who function as high priests and not as Apostles. Their office of Apostle is dormant, in the same way that the office of bishop is dormant in a stake president.

so Mormons believe that Paul was one of the Twelve?

Yes, which means that another member of that quorum must have died for Paul to be called to succeed him.

There were other apostles besides the Twelve, but these others were never part of the Twelve.

Those (like Barnabas) were not genuine Apostles. As you know “apostle” simply means “sent;” so anybody who is “sent” is an apostle. But he is not an Apostle in the sense of an office in the Church. It is like the word “bishop”. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, “bishop” means “episcopus, from Gk. episkopos ‘watcher, overseer,’ a title for various government officials, later taken over in a Church sense”. So you can call any “overseer” a bishop, but he is not a bishop as a church officer is a bishop. The same thing applies to those who were called apostles in the New Testament, but who were not true Apostles like Peter or Paul.

Here is the Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant view:

-The criteria set forth to be one of the Twelve was made explicit when Saint Matthias was chosen to replace Judas, where we see the “field” narrowed down to Saint Matthias and Barsabbas. We see this as the criteria set forth. From what I understand, Mormons do not see this criteria as necessarily universal criteria.

Correct.

-There were other apostles besides the Twelve. All of the Twelve we apostles, but not all apostles were part of the Twelve.

Correct. See explanation above.

Mormons claim that the Twelve was not supposed to end, and that it was restored and continues today. In Catholic thought, no one can be part of the Twelve today because no one meets the criteria that we believe was made explicit with the selection of Saint Matthias.

Correct; and Mormons disagree with the Catholic view.

what makes an apostle an apostle? What made the Twelve different from other apostles?

And Apostle, meaning one of the Twelve, is an office in the Church; in the same way that a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon is; and therefore he has to be ordained to that office to be such.

Do we need a Quorum of Twelve Apostles today? Why?

Yes, for the same reason that the ancient church did—i.e. to act as the governing body of the whole church.

How many replacements of the original Twelve were there?

We know of at least two—Matthias and Paul. If there were more we are not informed who they were.

 

[Erich]

How many replacements of the original Twelve were there?

Where are we informed whom Paul is a replacement for? “another member of that quorum must have died for Paul to be called to succeed him” is just speculation.

 

[zerinus]

Where are we informed whom Paul is a replacement for? “another member of that quorum must have died for Paul to be called to succeed him” is just speculation.

Because we know that there can only be Twelve true Apostles at any one time. We also know that Paul was such an Apostles. That logically leads one to the conclusion that another Apostle must have died for Paul to have succeeded him. We know in fact that James the Apostle was put to death by Herod. Paul was most likely a successor to James.

 

[ricko]

Because we know that there can only be Twelve true Apostles at any one time. We also know that Paul was such an Apostles. That logically leads one to the conclusion that another Apostle must have died for Paul to have succeeded him. We know in fact that James the Apostle was put to death by Herod. Paul was most likely a successor to James.

That, as said, is pure speculation because there is no evidence to that anywhere. If there is, please provide it.

 

[Bill_Pick]

That does not correctly state LDS doctrine. It is not revealed in LDS scripture that Peter, James, and John were the First Presidency in the early Christian church. I don’t know of any official proclamation by the Church to that effect either. Some individual authors may have speculated on that, but that was their opinions. It is not binding on the Church. Just because the Church has a First Presidency today, it does not mean that it should have had one then. The Twelve Apostles were perfectly capable of, and had the required keys to govern the church at that time without the First Presidency, as they do today.

The First Presidency is an ancient institution, and predates the the Twelve Apostles. It existed in ancient times, in the days of Adam and the ancient Patriarchs. You do not have to be an Apostle to be a member of the first Presidency. You have to be a high priest of the order of Melchizedek. The reason why they are Apostles today is because they have to rise through the ranks to get there; and rising through the ranks means being an Apostle for a period of time. It is like a stake president who has been a bishop for a time. He still remains a bishop even though he is now released from that calling and become a stake president.

Strictly speaking there aren’t 15 Apostles, but Twelve. The Twelve form a quorum whose membership cannot exceed 12. The First Presidency although they are Apostles, are not members of that quorum. They form their own quorum of the First Presidency, who function as high priests and not as Apostles. Their office of Apostle is dormant, in the same way that the office of bishop is dormant in a stake president.

Yes, which means that another member of that quorum must have died for Paul to be called to succeed him.

Those (like Barnabas) were not genuine Apostles. As you know “apostle” simply means “sent;” so anybody who is “sent” is an apostle. But he is not an Apostle in the sense of an office in the Church. It is like the word “bishop”. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, “bishop” means “episcopus, from Gk. episkopos ‘watcher, overseer,’ a title for various government officials, later taken over in a Church sense”. So you can call any “overseer” a bishop, but he is not a bishop as a church officer is a bishop. The same thing applies to those who were called apostles in the New Testament, but who were not true Apostles like Peter or Paul.

Correct.

Correct. See explanation above.

Correct; and Mormons disagree with the Catholic view.

And Apostle, meaning one of the Twelve, is an office in the Church; in the same way that a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon is; and therefore he has to be ordained to that office to be such.

Yes, for the same reason that the ancient church did—i.e. to act as the governing body of the whole church.

We know of at least two—Matthias and Paul. If there were more we are not informed who they were.

How can any cult that was not started until 1830 have any Apostle to talk about ,

 

[zerinus]

That, as said, is pure speculation because there is no evidence to that anywhere. If there is, please provide it.

Not speculation at all. Everything I said is scripturally provable:

• Paul was an Apostle: he tells us that.
• He was one of the Twelve: he tells us that.
• The Twelve must always be Twelve: the Bible tells us that.
• James was beheaded by Herod: the Bible tells us that.

So what was speculation about what I said?

 

[zerinus]

How can any cult that was not started until 1830 have any Apostle to talk about ,

Because of the Apostasy my friend.

 

[Bill_Pick]

What apostosy are you taking about, are you talking about the LDS the one they had

 

[Erich]

Not speculation at all. Everything I said is scripturally provable:

• Paul was an Apostle: he tells us that.
• He was one of the Twelve: he tells us that.
• The Twelve must always be Twelve: the Bible tells us that.
• James was beheaded by Herod: the Bible tells us that.

So what was speculation about what I said?

• At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”* Acts 6:1-4

Luke, who wrote Acts (and who was Paul’s companion), knew that Paul was not numbered with the Twelve.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

What Paul actually tells us is that he did not consider himself one of the Twelve.

 

[zerinus]

• At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. So the Twelve* called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” Acts 6:1-4

Luke, who wrote Acts (and who was Paul’s companion), knew that Paul was not numbered with the Twelve.

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

What Paul actually tells us is that he did not consider himself one of the Twelve.

Wrong! Both the scriptures quoted above refer to events that took place in the early history of the church, before Paul had been even converted. At the time the events described in those verses took place, Paul was persecuting the Christians. So sure, at that time Paul was not an Apostle, because he wasn’t even a Christian. Later on after he was converted, he was called to be an Apostle by the Lord, and thus became one of the Twleve Apostles.