Defining the “Apostolic”

Dear Reggie, Is it possible to pass on to me a concise plain speaking explanation of the word APOSTOLIC without losing too much of its meaning. Bless you. Shalom.

The definitive paradigm for true apostleship is Isaiah (ch 6). The dynamics are all there. You will see it in the devastated twelve, the devastated Peter, and the devastated Paul. All were emptied and raised to be sent. The transformation is in the seeing (Zech 12:10; Jn 6:40; 2Cor 3:18), a seeing that seems to follow a process of travail and the annihilation of self-dependency, which seems to be the strength of the veil of unbelief (“I travail in birth till Christ be formed in you”). This is the pattern; and it is the great need of the church if it is to be apostolic.

An apostle is one that represents in himself the corporate calling of the church of the indwelling Apostle and High Priest of our profession (no less true of the OT apostle; see 1Pet 1:11; “the Spirit of Christ which was IN them”). Like salvation, this call and this sending does not come by the flesh or by the will of man (Gal 1:12), but awaits God’s own chosen time and initiative (“But when it pleased God … to reveal His Son in me;” Gal 1:15-16). Therefore, true apostleship must be more than a certain kind of gifting; it is the product of a divine working that answers to a definite pattern of death and resurrection, of travail unto birthing, predicated on a transforming vision, or revelation of Christ that devastates carnal confidence. Where this pattern is lacking, the greater the gifting, the greater the snare of becoming a false apostle. I don’t know if this fits the prescribed criteria, but it’s all that comes to mind right now.

Sincerely, Reggie

This entry was posted in Apostolic Sending. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Defining the “Apostolic”

  1. Pingback: Reign of Grace » Blog Archive » True Prophetic Authority

Comments are closed.