I agree with you that ‘disciple’ and ‘apostle’ are not synonymous.
>>>Paul, the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:13; Gal. 2:8), announces himself as an apostle in the opening words of most of his letters. Because he had seen Christ on the Damascus road and been commissioned by Him (Acts 26:16-18) he was as truly a witness to Jesus' resurrection (which an apostle had to be, Acts 1:21, 22; 10:41, 42) as were the others. James, Peter, and John accepted Paul into apostolic partnership (Gal. 2:9), and God confirmed his status by the signs of an apostle (miracles and signs, 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3,4), and by the fruitfulness of his ministry (I Cor. 9:2).<<<
And yet the term ‘apostles’ is used to include others besides Paul, like Barnabas, Timothy, Silas, and possibly Apollos. Based on the language of II Corinthians 10 (‘we’, ‘our’) Paul shared in a ‘measure of rule’ with his co-workers in Corinth.
>>The apostles were agents of God's revelation of the truths that would become the Christian rule of faith and life. As such, and through Christ's appointment of them as His authorized representatives (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10), the apostles exercised a unique authority in the church.<<
Notice that the quote from II Cor. 10:8 is about Paul and his coworkers, and not just Paul alone. Assuming that II Corinthians is really one epistle, then these coworkers and co-authors are Timothy and Silas. If it is not, the first part of the epistle still identifies these as men who had declared the Gospel in Corinth.
So either Timothy and Silas had seen the Lord (;in Timothy’s case, it probably would have had to have been post-ascension in a supernatural manner considering) or else they could have this kind of authority without having seen Christ. Paul ties their authority to having brought the Gospel to an unreached area: Corinth. This is something the false apostles had not true claim to. Corinth was the seal of Paul’s apostleship in the Lord. So apparently, there fruitful church planting work can be a sign of true apostleship. I am not saying it is the only one.
You also said, >The twelve apostles (Rev. 21:14), as distinct from the apostles ("messengers") of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23), and from the rest of the disciples, were chosen and sent by Jesus (Mark 3:14) just as Jesus Himself, "the Apostle... of our confession" (Heb. 3:1), was foreordained and sent by the Father, so rejecting the apostles is rejecting Jesus (Luke 10:16).<
The messengers of the churches in this passage seem to have been delivery men, rather than ‘apostles’ in the sense that Paul, Silas, and Timothy were. Paul was not one of the 12. He says that Jesus appeared to the 12 before appearing to him, and since Judas was dead at Christ’s appearance (if the Gospels are chronological) and apparently Christ did not appear to Judas’, then Christ must have appeared to Matthias. Acts tells us that he was a witness of the resurrection. Paul did not consider himself to be one of the 12.
So Paul was an apostle who was not one of the 12. So was Barnabas, Silas, etc. >> There are no apostles today, though some Christians fulfill ministries that are in particular ways apostolic in style. No new canonical revelation is being given; apostolic teaching authority resides in the canonical Scriptures. The abscence of new revelation does not put the contemporary church at a disadvantage compared with the church of apostolic days for the Holy Spirit interprets and applies the Scripture to God's people continually. (Theological notes from New Geneva Study Bible)<<
Those are notes from below the text of scripture, and not holy scripture itself of course. Unfortunately, if one follows the axiom of sola scriptura, these assertions cannot be proven. The Bible does not teach that scripture replaces the apostles. The council that decided on scripture may have used apostolic witness as a means of determining what was canonical.
Timothy apparently had authority, even if he received his authoritative message from Paul (II Timothy 2:2.) Shouldn’t we consider that there may be an apostolic role for Timothy-types in our era?
I am interesting in having a Biblical ecclesiology. In the Bible, we see there is a role and a position of authority for the church-planting missionary type. The 12 were not the only ones with authority. Travelling apostles started churches and appointed elders who pastured these local churches. A lot of people have a concept ecclesiology that does not make room for the church planting role at all. I believe scripture gives us an ecclesiology that includes the church-planting role of apostles.
