Apostles and Prophets and the modern Church, oh my!

Tradition has it that are no more Apostles in the Church today, nor has there been any since the originals died off in the 1 st century. The same is pretty much assumed for Prophets, as well. But why do we assume such things? There are several traditions on what qualifies one as an apostle. Here are a few I've come across over the years. One must 1) have personally known and met, or at least been an eye wittiness to the resurrected, Jesus, 2) be appointed specifically by Jesus to be an apostle, 4) preform miracles, 5) be evangelistic, 6) be a missionary, 7) plant churches, 8) suffer persecution for the sake of Christ. Of these only one, number 2, is backed by Scripture. Number 1 goes without saying, and can be met by anyone having accepted Jesus as their Lord, God and King and is the prerequisite of doing any ministry. The rest are not qualifications but rather things we know from Scripture in regards to the lives of the Apostles. We've all heard of the 12 disciples, twelve men that Jesus called to train under him to continue his work after his death and resurrection. Yet we know Jesus had many more than twelve disciples. Luke 10 mentions 70 of them were paired up and sent out to do such things as heal the sick, cast out demons and raise people from the dead. Acts 1:15 mentions that 120 of his disciples got together to decide what to do about replacing Judas. Mathew 10:1 calls the 12, disciples, yet in the very next verse they are referred to as apostles. Mark 3:14 tells us that Jesus appointed 12 men to be his apostles, the for the purpose of sending them. Mark 6 speaks of the 12 that were paried up, sent out and and came back to talk about their experiences. Luke 6:12 says he called his disciples, chose 12 and then appointed them as apostles. In Luke 11:49 Jesus quotes 2 Chronicles 24:19 (also Jeremiah 7:25) that the Lord would send prophets, yet Jesus added and apostles. Perhaps Jesus was saying Prophets and and other sent ones. From these verses and others, the only qualifications one needed to have in order to be an apostle was to 1) be a disciple of Christ, and 2), be appointed by Christ. But what about Paul? Paul is never mentioned in Scripture to ever have met Jesus, face to face, during His 3 years in ministry. Tradition has it that Paul was discipled (by a resurrected Jesus) for 3 years on the back side of the desert. Paul, in a way, met Christ on the road to Damascus, but after that Paul was never mentioned to having any more access to Christ than you or I, through the Holy Spirit. So, what does Scripture say about Paul becoming an Apostle? The time-line of Paul's conversion and discipleship is largely subject to debate. Acts 9 speaks of his conversion, rejection by the disciples, and then Barnabas bringing him to the apostles. Paul is also mentioned as having astonished people with his preaching. By the end of Acts 9, Paul looks to have wondered off and isn't mentioned again until Acts 11 where Barnabas looks for, and finds, him in Tarsus. Galatians tells how after his conversion that at some point he went to Arabia and then back to Damascus, then after 3 years departed for Jerusalem. None of this backs up tradition.

What Paul was doing in Arabia was never mentioned in Scripture. Was he discipled by a resurrected Christ while in Arabia? Scripture does not tells us one way or another. Only God knows what really happened. Between Galatians 1 and Acts 9 it would seem that Paul was simply, after spending a couple of weeks with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, eventually accepted as one of them, an Apostle. As for New Testament Prophets, they are mentioned but nowhere does it say anything about how they came to be prophets, nor how it was determined that they were indeed prophets. They were simply known to be, and thus accepted as, prophets. Acts 13:1 gives a list of some prophets and teachers that were at Antioch at that given time: Barnabas, and Symeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As for today, from what I can find, there is no Biblical reason for us to reject the idea of modern Apostles and Prophets. In fact, Scripture only supports the idea that we should expect them to no only exist, but lead the Church. In fact, the lack of acceptance of Apostles and Prophets is a huge clue (from Scripture) as to why the Church looks so unlike the 1st century Church. Are we known for our love for one another? Do we take care of each others needs? Do we disciple people, then send them out to do the work of the ministry? Do we walk in faith? Do we act mature towards one another? Do we at least tithe? Are you kidding me? Mahatma Gandhi was once asked about Jesus. He said I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. His sentiments have been echoed around the world. When Christ returns, He will expect the Church, His bride, to be spotless and without blemish. What does this mean? I would imagine that He would expect that the Church look exactly how He left instructions for it to look like. Would He be expecting millions of sleepy uncommitted non-discpled pewsitters? I can't imagine why He would. Yes, there are Apostles and Prophets these days. The only things that stand in the way of knowing this is our refusal to accept the authority of Scripture and our refusal to accept them as Apostles and Prophets, and that they stand in the authority of Christ.