on the label "Apostolic"

I've recited the Nicene Creed before. Many Christians have. In this creed, we affirm the findings of the council of Nicea, mostly which are affirmations of the Triune nature of God. It also affirms that we "believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Today, I'd like to focus on the word "Apostolic".

To be Apostolic means to agree with the Apostles. Apostle is from the Greek word, ἀπόστολος, which means "messenger, or one who is sent". The Apostles were sent with the good news of Jesus Christ. To be Apostolic means to accept the Apostle's teaching as sent from Jesus Christ, himself. Some modern Christians may jerk their knees at this. Shouldn't we follow what Jesus said? Well, yes, we should follow what Jesus said, and He said to follow the Apostles:

John 15:
20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

These last words are very direct. If we keep Jesus' words, we will keep the Apostle's. To be Christian means that we must be Apostolic. We cannot claim to be followers of Jesus Christ if we do not accept those whom He sent. The question then rises, who were the Apostles? The Catholic church would rephrase the questions saying, "who are the Apostles?", and answer that they believe the archbishops and pope are Apostles. Is this accurate? Let's look into this matter:

Following verse 20 of John 15 (cited above) there are the following verses:

26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

Jesus tells the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will bear witness to Jesus first. God himself is the first witness, there is no greater witness than Him. He tells the apostles that they will bear witness with the Holy Spirit because they have been with Him from the beginning. From this, we should take note that the Apostles have had personal encounters with Jesus himself. He is speaking, at this point, to the 12 Apostles, those who shared the last meal with Him in the upper room. Judas was among these 12, but I don't think that we're to listen to Judas, as he was soon to betray Jesus:

John 13:
2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, ...

So, we're supposed to follow the 11 Apostles, right? Well, no. The 11 soon became 12 again as is recorded in Acts 1:

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, 16 “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.”

Peter suggests the 11 find a 12th from the 120 who followed them. They do so, and the criteria which they used is recorded in the verses that follow:

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

When the 11 seek to find a 12th, they chose only from someone who had been with Jesus. It is mentioned from when Jesus was baptized by John (Mark 1) until he ascended (Acts 1:6-11). Essentially, they are only choosing among those who have witnessed all of Jesus' public ministry! The passage continues:

23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

After selecting from only those they knew had been with Jesus through it all, they narrowed it down to two, prayed for God to make the final selection, and cast lots (a way of determining God's Will, see Lev 16:8, Prov 16:33). This is recorded openly for us, so they did not make the selection privately. All together, this means that they understood that the selection of Apostles was not an action done by men, but by God. We see this same thinking when Paul speaks of his Apostleship in Galatians 1:

1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Remember that Paul was not one of the 12. How, then, did he become an Apostle? Did the 12 add him to their number the same way Matthias was added? As the first verse in Galatians says (quoted above), Paul is an apostle 'not from men nor through man'. He underscores later in the same chapter that He was directly called by Jesus Christ:

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. [3] 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul became an Apostle because Jesus chose him. The 12 Apostles became Apostles because Jesus chose them. Since Jesus chose them and told us to listen to them, we need to listen to them. How do we do so? Well, the way we hear the Apostle's teaching is by reading what they wrote. The Apostle Paul wrote most of the New Testament. Other parts of the New Testament were written by close followers of the Apostles. We ensure that we are paying heed to the Apostles by hearing and doing what is written in the Bible.

To reject the Apostles' writings is to reject God who ultimately sent them. Jesus speaks to this effect as he sent out the 72 in Luke 10:

16 “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Jesus even prays to The Father to for us to believe the Apostles in John 17:

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Subordinate Authority

My church recently had the joy of receiving new members. During the service, there were vows taken before God which I witnessed. Also witnessing these vows was a friend of mine who was only visiting the church this particular Sabbath. He later asked me some questions which got me thinking about the issue of authority. Here's what he asked:

How do you rectify proclaiming that the Bible is the source of truth and that you must submit to the authority of the church? I noticed that [the new member's] vows are book-ended by these two statements. The first is about the Bible being the only source of truth, the last is affirming submission to the authority of the church. Maybe I misunderstood the statements, but I know they were both mentioned. ... It just seems to contradict if you claim sole authority in the Bible and yet you submit to the authority of the church as well.

The vows that my friend took notice of are as follows (also found in the Constitution of the Church):

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule for faith and life?
4. Do you promise to submit in the Lord to the teaching and government of this church as being based upon the Scriptures and described in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America? Do you recognize your responsibility to work with others in the church and do you promise to support and encourage them in their service to the Lord? In case you should need correction in doctrine or life, do you promise to respect the authority and discipline of the church?

The questions my friend was asking led to a discussion on the topic of authority, particularly subordinate authority. I have an example which I believe demonstrates what I mean. My wife is the nanny for 3 young boys (you can read about her adventures here). My wife was hired for this job by the 3 boys' parents. These parents have authority over their children. When my wife watches them, the only authority she has is the authority that the parents give her. In a sense, she is under their authority as pertains to how she treats their children. If they commanded the kids to not eat dirt and my wife said it were OK to eat dirt (or fed them nothing but candy, or had them watch violent movies, or instructed them to bite one another, etc. (which she doesn't do!) ), she would be removed from her post and replaced by another. Her authority is a subordinate authority. If the church fails to exercise it's authority in accord with what God prescribes in the bible, He may choose to cut off that branch of believers and grow a new shoot elsewhere (just as He did with unbelieving Israel).

I believe that the bible is God's way to tell His church what He wants them to know. But then the question comes up, what are the key things which the bible teaches? How are we to interpret it? This is one reason why the church to which I belong is a confessional church. The WMCF, Testimony, WMLC, WMSC are standards which are subordinate to God's word in the bible. They summarize what the church believes the bible says. If any error is found in these standards, these errors are to be removed so to align them with the scriptures. I submit to them only because I believe that they accurately summarize what the bible teaches. I submit to the authority of the church because I believe it is being true to the Word made flesh.

The issue of authority is very important... especially for people who consider Jesus their Lord. The church each of us attends has an impact on what we believe and how it plays out in our life. This is a good thing provided the church teaches truth. But if a church's teachings are marginal, eventually the belief of its members become marginal as well. Whether explicitly or implicitly, members of a church submit themselves to the doctrines (and dry theology) they receive there. This makes the issue of choosing and committing to a church important.

Questions I'm challenging myself with:

Have I read all of the confessional standards of my church? Do I challenge them against the scriptures (rather than challenging scriptures against them)? Am I submitting to the church I belong to as a subordinate authority?