Are There Still Apostles Today?

A quick Google search reveals that self-proclaimed apostles abound online.

With the growth of many churches having roles of Apostles in their churches after
having none in church history apart from the 12 and Paul, it is a valid question to
ask if this role or office still exists in the church and what are Bible-believing
Christians to think about all of this?

At the outset, we should note that by “apostles” we do not simply mean “sent
ones” in the general sense. The bible uses the word apostle or sent out in the
general sense for Timothy, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias and some others
because all of them were sent out to preach the Gospel.
Rather, we are speaking of the office of Apostles. They are those select individuals
directly appointed and authorized by Jesus Christ to be His immediate
representatives on earth. In this sense, we are speaking of “capital A” apostles –
such as the Twelve and the apostle Paul who had the office of an Apostle.

It is these type of “apostles” mentioned in Acts 1:20 – 25 and that Paul speaks of
in Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11 and in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30. This is important
because, especially in Ephesians 4 and in 1 Corinthians 12–14, and Acts 1:20 – 25.
There are at least five reasons why we believe there are no longer any apostles in
the church today (and in fact have not been since the death of the apostle John)

1. The Qualifications Necessary for Apostleship

First, and perhaps most basically, the qualifications necessary for apostleship
preclude contemporary Christians from filling the apostolic office.

In order to be an in the office of an apostle, (Acts 1:20, Ps 109:8 For it is written in

the Book of Psalms, “‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to
dwell in it’; and “‘Let another take his office.’) one had to meet at least three
necessary qualifications: (1) an apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected
Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8); (2) an apostle had to be directly
appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1); and
(3) an apostle had to be able to confirm his mission and message with miraculous
signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4).
We might also note that, in choosing Matthias as a replacement for Judas, the
eleven also looked for someone who had accompanied Jesus throughout His
entire earthly ministry (Acts 1:21–22; 10:39–41).
Based on these qualifications alone, many continuationists (who believe that all
the sign gifts are given to believer in the body of Christ today.) agree that there
are no apostles in the church today. Thus, Wayne Grudem (a continuationist)
notes in his Systematic Theology, “It seems that no apostles were appointed after
Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen
the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today” (p. 911).

2. The Uniqueness of Paul’s Apostleship

But what about the apostle Paul?

Some have contended that, in the same way that Paul was an apostle, there
might still be apostles in the church today. But this ignores the uniqueness with
which Paul viewed his own apostleship. Paul’s situation was not the norm, as he
himself explains in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he
appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an
apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
He saw himself as a one-of-a-kind anomaly, openly calling himself “the last” and
“the least” of the apostles.

Someone may object that Christ could appear to someone today and appoint that
person as an apostle. But the foundational nature of the office of apostle (Eph.
2:20; Rev. 21:14) and the fact that Paul views himself as the last one whom Christ
appeared to and appointed as an apostle (“last of all, as to one untimely born,” 1
Cor. 15:8), indicate that this will not happen. Note also the other apostles
acknowledged the apostleship of Paul. Galatians 2:8-9 for he who worked through
Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for
mine to the Gentiles, 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be
pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of
fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the
circumcised.
Because Paul’s apostleship was unique, it is not a pattern that we should expect
to see replicated in the church today. Also before we jump into a conclusion that
maybe Barnabas too is an apostle in the verses above we need to see clearly that
Barnabas was given the right hand of fellowship because he was with Paul and it
was Paul who was the Apostle to the Gentiles and it was in him that the apostles
James, Peter and John perceived grace that was given.

3. Apostolic Authority and the Closing of the Canon

It is our belief that, if we hold to a closed canon, we must also hold to the
cessation of the apostolic office.

The New Testament apostles had a unique kind of authority in the early church:
authority to speak and write words which were “words of God” in an absolute
sense. To disbelieve or disobey them was to disbelieve or disobey God. The
apostles, therefore, had the authority to write words which became words of
Scripture. This fact in itself should suggest to us that there was something unique
about the office of apostle, and that we would not expect it to continue today, for
no one today can add words to the Bible and have them be counted as God’s very
words or as part of Scripture. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 905–906)

Hebrews 1:1–2 indicates that what God first revealed through the Old Testament,
He later and more fully revealed through His Son. The New Testament, then, is
Christ’s revelation to His church. It begins with His earthly ministry (in the four
gospels), and continues through the epistles – letters that were written by His
authorized representatives.

Thus, in John 14:26, Christ authorized His apostles to lead the church, promising
them that the Helper would come and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus
had taught them. The instruction they gave the church, then, was really an
extension of Jesus’ ministry, as enabled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 3:5–6; 2 Pet.
1:20–21). Those in the early church generally understood apostolic instruction as
authoritative and as being on par with the OT Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor.
14:37; Gal. 1:9; 2 Pet. 3:16).

In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have
instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the New Testament. Those
New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolutely authoritative
teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves
during the early years of the church.

The doctrine of a closed canon is, therefore, largely predicated on the fact that
the apostles were unique and are no longer here. After all, if there were still
apostles in the church today, with the same authority as the New Testament
apostles, how could we definitively claim that the canon is closed?

But since there are no longer apostles in the church today, and since new
inscripturated revelation must be accompanied by apostolic authority and
approval, it is not possible to have new inscripturated revelation today.

The closing of the canon and the non-continuation of apostles are two concepts
that necessarily go hand-in-hand.

4. The Foundational Role of the Apostles

Closely related to the above is the fact that the apostles were part of the
foundation period of the church (Eph. 2:20). Since (following the construction
metaphor) the foundation stage precedes the superstructure, it is appropriate to
infer that the apostles were given to the church for its beginning stages.

Our interpretation of “foundation” (as a reference to past period within the

church’s history) is strengthened by the evidence from the earliest church fathers.
The foundation stage was something the fathers referred to in the past tense,
indicating that they understood it as past.
Also we should be aware that the interpretation of foundation that is mentioned
in Ephesians is for the church as a whole and not individual foundations for each
local church. The structure for a local churches can be found in Titus 1 and 1
Timothy 3 and also in Acts 14:23, Acts 6. And this has been the interpretation of
those text from the very beginning all throughout church history.

Thus, Ignatius a disciple of John (c. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians
Chapter X, wrote (speaking in the past tense):

“The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and
shall be a holy people.” This was first fulfilled in Syria; for “the disciples were
called Christians at Antioch,” when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of
the Church.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in Against Heresies, echoes the past tense understanding
that Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church (in Book3 Chapter1.Point1)
and later refers to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the
church” (in Book 4.Chapter21.Point3).

Tertullian (c. 155–230), in The Five Books Against Marcion (chapter 21), notes the
importance of holding to apostolic doctrine, even in a post-apostolic age:

No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God
suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles
their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching
will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present
day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation.

Lactantius (c. 240–320), also, in The Divine Institutes (Book4.Chapter21) refers to

a past time in which the foundations of the church were laid:

But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the
foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master
doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed
them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement
might be founded and confirmed.

Other examples could also be added from the later Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers. Chrysostom, for instance, would be another such source (from
his Homilies on Ephesians).

The earliest church fathers, from just after the apostolic era, understood the work
of the apostles to constitute a unique, “foundational” stage of the church. The
fact that they reference this in the past tense, as something distinct from their
own ministries, indicates that they understood that the apostolic age had passed,
and thus the foundation stage was over.
5. The Historical Testimony of Those Following the Apostles

In our previous point, we contended that the apostles were given for the
foundation stage of the church (Eph. 2:20), and that the early church recognized
this foundation stage as a specific time-period that did not continue past the first
century.

But it is important to go one step further, and note that the earliest church
fathers saw the apostles as a unique group of men, distinct from all who would
follow after them.

(A) Those who came after the apostles did not view themselves or their
contemporaries as apostles.

According to their own self-testimony, the Christian leaders who followed the
apostles were not apostles themselves, but were the “disciples of the apostles”
(The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 11; Fragments of Papias, 5; cf. The Epistle
of Polycarp to the Philippians, 6; Ignatius, Against Heresies, 1.10), the elders and
deacons of the churches.

Thus, Clement (late first century disciple of Paul) in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 1 Clement 42:1 – 4, notes that:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus
Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the
apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way,
according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being
fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the
word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming
that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and
cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by
the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Ignatius (Disciple of John), for instance, purposely avoided equating himself with
the apostles. Thus, he wrote, “I do not issue commands on these points as if I
were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them” (The
Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 11).
(B) Those who followed the apostles viewed apostolic writings as both unique
and authoritative.

Moreover, in keeping with our third point (above), it was “the doctrine of the
apostles” (cf. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 13; The Epistle of Ignatius
to the Antiochians, 1) that was to be guarded, taught, and heeded. Thus, the
“memoirs of the apostles” were held as canonical and authoritative within the
early church (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2.5; Victorinus, Commentary on the
Apocalypse, 10.9).

Along these lines, Justin writes:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather
together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the
prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the
president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things (The
First Apology of Justin, 67).

The doctrine and writing of the apostles was unique, having been written by the
authoritative representatives of Christ Himself.

(C) Those who followed the apostles saw the apostolic age as a unique and
unrepeated period of church history.

The fathers saw the “times of the apostles” as a distinct, non-repeateable period
of church history (cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.36.54; Reply to Faustus,
32.13; On Baptism, 14.16; et al). Thus, Chrysostom wrote on the uniqueness of
fellowship during the apostolic age:

I wish to give you an example of friendship. Friends, that is, friends according to
Christ, surpass fathers and sons. For tell me not of friends of the present day, since
this good thing also has past away with others. But consider, in the time of the
Apostles, I speak not of the chief men, but of the believers themselves generally;
“all,” he says, “were of one heart and soul. and not one of them said that aught of
the things which he possessed was his own… and distribution was made unto
each, according as any one had need.” (Acts 4:32, 35) There were then no such
words as “mine” and “thine.” This is friendship, that a man should not consider his
goods his own, but his neighbor’s, that his possessions belong to another; that he
should be as careful of his friend’s soul, as of his own; and the friend likewise.
(Homily on 1 Thess. 1:8-10)

Chrysostom looked back to the deep affection that characterized the apostolic era
to provide a contrast to the relative lovelessness of the church in his day. In so
doing, he underscores the fact that he understood the apostolic age to be long
past. One additional passage might be cited in this regard:

I know that ye open wide your mouths and are amazed, at being to hear that it is
in your power to have a greater gift than raising the dead, and giving eyes to the
blind, doing the same things which were done in the time of the Apostles. And it
seems to you past belief. What then is this gift? charity. (Homily on Heb. 1:6-8)

Many more examples from church history could be given. Eusebius’s whole
history is based on the progression of church history from the “times of the
apostles” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, introduction). Basil, in his work On the
Spirit, points to previous leaders from church history (specifically Irenaeus) as
those “who lived near the times of the Apostles” (29.72). Tertullian spoke of
events that occurred “after the times of the apostles” (The Five Books Against
Marcion, 21) Polycarp (Disciple of John) “Let us therefore so serve Him with fear
and all reverence, as He himself gave commandment and the Apostles who
preached the Gospel to us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the
coming of our Lord.” (Polycarp - Epistle to The Philippians)

Historical Conclusions

Consistently, the fathers (from the earliest times) mark the apostolic age (and the
apostles themselves) as unique. Their writings were regarded as unique and
authoritative. Those that followed them were not considered to be apostles. Nor
did the Apostles themselves elect their disciples to be apostles in their place. The
best example is of Polycarp and Ignatius who were the disciples of John and
Clement of Rome who was a disciple of Paul who lived during the times of the
Apostles yet did not succeed in their office of apostleship rather were Bishops of
their region.
Few quotes and belief on Apostles today:
Assemblies of God: (Largest Pentecostal Denomination) Since the New Testament
does not provide guidance for the appointment of future apostles, such
contemporary offices are not essential to the health and growth of the church, nor
its apostolic nature.
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/Apostles-and-Prophets

We would probably do well to avoid using the term today for missionaries and
church planters, because using it may well create a confusion that could serve to
lessen the unique authority of original apostolic teaching.
Less than apostolic,
John Piper
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/were-apostles-unique-and-unrepeatable-
messengers-of-christ

It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church – not Athanasius
or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield – has taken to
himself the title of “apostle” or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern
times want to take the title “apostle” to themselves, the immediately raise the
suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-
exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in
the church than any one person should rightfully have. Wayne Grudem -
Systematic Theology, 911

In our day, some have claimed to be apostles. However, when we understand the
foundational role of the apostles, we understand that there are no apostles
today. As today’s passage tells us, they, along with the prophets, provided the
foundation of the church, and a foundation once laid does not need to be laid
again. Today, the church is called not to lay the foundation again but to continue
building the church of God through obedience to the apostolic writings of
Scripture. R.C. Sproul
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/apostles/

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/what-was-an-apostle/
Which denominations believe in the cessation of Apostles: All in the Reformed
Presbyterian and Baptist churches, almost all the Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist,
Presbyterian, and Pentecostal churches and some in the Charismatic Churches.
Most people who believe in this view are from cults like the Word of Faith and
New Apostolic Reformation.

Final Conclusion
Therefore we can conclude both Biblically and Historically clearly there are no
Apostles in the church today. If someone wants to use the word apostle for those
sent out to plant churches and oversee churches and preach the Gospel we can
also conclude like we have seen above that both biblically and historically that
role is not to be confused with the role of an Apostle and its best not to use that
name as it is confusing to people. Furthermore with so many using the name
Apostle for different reasons both right and wrong it adds to the confusion. Some
who are very few in number would understand that the office is not meant for
today and try to pursue the gifts and when they study from scripture and learn
from Paul or others who held the office they end up applying almost all that is
supposed to be for the office of an Apostle. So when in understanding they deny
the office, in practice they have embraced it.
In conclusion to honor the teaching of Christ and the true and only Apostles and
to honor the Holy Spirit who both inspired scripture and helps us understand
scriptures and to learn from the early church fathers (Pastors who were part of
the early church after the apostles, some even disciples of the Apostles
themselves.) and the ones who followed them it is best not to use the word
Apostle today to specify any role in church.