How do Latter-day Saints rebut Don Stewart's article "Are There Still Apostles Today?"?

Stewart's argument is inconsistent with itself; it is also inconsistent with the New Testament.

Logical Inconsistencies

Foundations

After acknowledging that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Christ Jesus himself is the cornerstone; Stewart suggests that The foundation was laid long ago. Their purpose is no longer necessary.

Imagine applying this argument to any physical structure: now that the building has been constructed, the foundation is no longer needed...? (This might be an interesting teaching to pair with the parable of the wise man and a foolish man)

Since the cornerstone is part of the foundation, Stewart's argument suggests that Jesus' purpose is no longer necessary. I emphatically disagree.

--

Last appearance

Stewart suggests several times that Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15:8 indicates that Paul was the last apostle and this was the last appearance of Jesus (other than to John on Patmos, which Stewart argues is an exception). This is contradicted by Paul's own history.

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians while in Ephesus during his 3rd missionary journey, putting composition in either AD 54 or 55; Jesus appeared to Paul again after this time. Acts 23 (circa AD 57) records an appearance of Jesus to Paul after Paul's 3rd missionary journey. This means the appearance recorded in 1 Cor 15:8 is not the final appearance of the resurrected Lord except to John on Patmos.

Additionally, it is a severe stretch to require that the word ἔσχατος, usually translated "last", means whatever is described next will never happen again. This severely restricts the usage & application of the word (see further discussion in this post). "Last days" can refer to a specific "end times" prophecy; it can also be used to mean "recent days" (the same way we refer to last week). Furthermore, when used in a series as it is here, ἔσχατος can simply mean the "least" of a group--this is precisely how the term is used in John 8:9, and appears to be how Paul himself uses the word earlier in the same letter (see 1 Cor. 4:9).

At no point does Paul (or Acts, if anyone's counting) indicate that a particular individual was the last apostle ever called.

--

Don't believe anything I say

Stewart's argument...

Today, we do not need people, such as apostles, to lead us. We find that even they failed. This is illustrated with the failing of Peter at Antioch...As Peter himself stated, what we need to today is the certain prophetic Word – that will never let us down

...would be more persuasive if he could show that nobody had ever misunderstood anything written in the Bible.

However, Stewart doubles down on this argument...

Believers need to read and obey what God has already revealed – they do not need to listen to fallible human beings to get their direction.

...perhaps forgetting that in the last 3 sentences he has acknowledged that the Biblical words he's quoting came through the medium of fallible human beings. If the following axioms are treated as absolutes:

• Words that come from the Bible are reliable
• Words that come through people are not reliable

They contradict one another. Anyone who accepts the inspiration of the Bible must acknowledge that God is capable of getting a message across through imperfect people.

If we should not listen to fallible human beings, one wonders why we should listen to Stewart. This boils down to the classic gag: I'm lying; don't believe anything I say.

--

Modern individuals need not apply?

Stewart offers 4 criteria (3 in his original list, but later in the post he adds a 4th), all of which he suggests are required for one to be an apostle:

1. Had to have been with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry
2. Being an eyewitness to His resurrection appearances
3. Accompanied by miraculous signs
4. Had unique authority to receive special revelation

Following which Stewart concludes:

With these conditions necessary for someone to be an apostle, it is impossible for anyone today to have the gift.

This is both question-begging & self-refuting.

There are 16 men in the New Testament named as apostles (original 12 + Matthias, James ben Joseph, Barnabas, Paul); with this in mind let's consider each criterion:

• With Jesus from beginning of ministry: James & Paul fail this test. Barnabas may fail this test; we do not know for certain.
• Eyewitness to His resurrection appearances. Appearances? None of the apostles were present at all of the appearances. But aside from the use of the plural appearances, which may have simply been a type-o, this assumes Jesus does not or cannot appear to anyone post-Patmos. This may be a popular view, but it certainly isn't Biblical.
• Accompanied by miraculous signs. What miraculous signs did Thaddeus perform? How about James the son of Alphaeus? Simon the Zealot? They may well have all performed signs...we just don't have record of it. Ergo, we cannot conclude a sign has not happened just because we don't know about it. There have in fact been millions of Christians over the years who have claimed miraculous signs; if even just one of them is correct, it undoes Stewart's argument. Additionally, the statement in Mark 16 is signs shall follow them that believe, not them that believe shall follow signs. Stewart's expectation of a sign gets the order of operations backwards.
• Had unique authority -- this is probably the best of Stewart's arguments, but Jesus left the door wide open for Himself to give authority to whomsoever He chooses whenever He chooses. He indicated that All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. We have no record that He made such a pronouncement regarding the apostles or their written records.

--

We don't need any more help; we've got it all figured out

This leads to a crucial omission in one of Stewart's quotes. After quoting Ephesians 4:8-12 he suggests:

All this verse says is that Jesus gave some to be apostles. It says nothing about the duration or continuation of the gift

It would if we let poor Paul finish his sentence. The following verse states:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13)

All coming to unity of the faith & knowledge of the Son of God...to say nothing of perfection and attaining the requisite stature...sound decidedly like a future-state that has not yet been achieved. Paul suggests, then, that the need for apostolic ministry has not abated.

--

Blasphemy

The argument I found most curious was this one:

Anyone who would claim a personal appearance from Jesus Christ as well as apostolic authority is bordering on blasphemy

This is eerily similar to the argument made by the Sanhedrin when Jesus was on trial. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. The Sanhedrin recognized this was blasphemy...unless of course it was true.

The same can be appended to Stewart's argument: anyone making these apostolic claims is bordering on blasphemy...unless of course it was true.

Adopting the reasoning of religious leaders who rejected the Messiah is an inadvisable strategy. God's representatives (to say nothing of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself) have made bold claims throughout history, and people tended to reject them on the very same grounds: people were willing to believe in God's servants of the past, but not in His servants of the present.

They imagined God's representatives of the past as larger-than-life and held them to an idealized standard, and then they rejected God's living representatives for failing to meet this artificial standard.

--

Other logical fallacies

Great Christian leaders of the past have not claimed such a title [the title of apostle]

This is cherry-picking--it's only true if we first claim that all leaders who have claimed the title apostle were not Great Christian leaders.

Additionally, there's no reason why a first-century Pharisee could not make an identical argument: great Jewish leaders of the past have not claimed the title of apostle, so we shouldn't believe anyone who does now.

--

His [Paul's] ministry did not have any successors.

This is question-begging--that's the point he's supposed to be proving.

Theological Assessment

Here I will offer my views as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--I'll add only a little to the excellent presentation already given by depperm.

Stewart spoke of the continuing office of apostleship as the alternative to his own view. This is a false dichotomy. I believe in a Great Apostasy and in a Restoration of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ--including apostolic authority--in modern times.

We have not attained the lofty goals outlined by Paul, and the need for oracles of God on earth is as great as ever. Historically, God has on multiple occasions withdrawn His authorized representatives when people rejected them, but has sent messengers again when He knew the time was right.

I believe in modern apostles who are special witnesses of Christ and who are His authorized, qualified representatives. I had the privilege of personally meeting with one of them a few weeks ago.

--

Considering the alternatives

When Hugh B. Brown was asked why God doesn't speak today as He did in the past, Brother Brown observed:

• Perhaps God does not speak to man anymore because He cannot. He has lost the power. (No)
• Well, then, if you don’t accept that, perhaps He doesn’t speak to men because He doesn’t love us anymore and He is no longer interested in the affairs of men (No)
• Well, then, if He could speak, and if He loves us, then the only other possible answer, as I see it, is that we don’t need Him. We have made such rapid strides in science and we are so well educated that we don’t need God anymore (No)

Having ruled out competing possibilities, Elder Brown concluded:

He does speak, He has spoken; but men need faith to hear Him (source)

--

How do you know modern apostles have not received that witness?

Apostle Harold B. Lee described his thoughts on much the same question raised by Stewart:

Some years ago two missionaries came to me with what seemed to them to be a very difficult question. A...minister had laughed at them when they had said that apostles were necessary today in order for the true church to be upon the earth. They said that the minister said, "Do you realize that when the apostles met to choose one to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Judas, they said it had to be one who companied with them and had been a witness of all things pertaining to the mission and resurrection of the Lord? How can you say you have apostles, if that be the measure of an apostle?"

And so these young men said, "What shall we answer?"

I said to them, "Go back and ask your minister friend two questions. First, how did the Apostle Paul gain what was necessary to be called an apostle? He didn't know the Lord, had no personal acquaintance. He hadn't accompanied the apostles. He hadn't been a witness of the ministry nor of the resurrection of the Lord. How did he gain his testimony sufficient to be an apostle? And the second question you ask him is, How does he know that all who are today apostles have not likewise received that witness?"

Post-script on foundations

I recognize that Stewart's framing of Ephesians 2:19-20 is not the only way this argument is presented--I responded above to the way he specifically made the argument.

More broadly, it appears that there are essentially 2 schools of thought:

a) The apostles laid the foundation and that work is done. When you build a building, you hire contractors to dig, pour cement, etc. Once they have done so, the contractors are no longer needed (their work remains)

b) The apostles are the foundation. The work of apostles and other officers is described not only here but in Ephesians 4, cited above (additional description of their work can be found, for example, in the Great Commission)--the apostolic ministry is to take the Gospel message to the world, to bring about unity in the faith, knowledge of the Son of God, etc. The apostles were and are the foundation of that work.

I suggest the genitive construction τῶν ἀποστόλων ("of the apostles"), and the ontological statement about Jesus Himself that follows it (not He made the cornerstone, He is the cornerstone), very much favors option b above. It is not that the apostles laid a foundation and left it; they are the foundation.

This is further supported in the theological portion of my post above. I believe that the ministry of the apostles is a critical function in God's ongoing work. Just as God was able to authorize (through His chosen channels) Matthias, James ben Joseph, Barnabas, and Paul to officiate as apostles after the calling of the original 12, He can (and I believe He does) appoint apostles when & where the time is right, and that this was a significant feature of the restoration of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in modern times.

I don't believe Jesus' participation in the work of salvation is done; He is not a passive observer. His atoning sacrifice has been performed, but He remains actively involved in the development and progression of humanity. So too the offices He instituted to join Him in taking His good news & His covenants to the ends of the earth.