Can anyone claim to be an apostle, or is it a specific title conferred by a church or organization?

1. Summary of the results

The question of whether anyone can claim to be an apostle reveals significant theological divisions across different Christian traditions. The analyses present three distinct perspectives on apostolic authority and legitimacy.

The Latter-day Saint perspective provides the most structured approach to modern apostolic calling. According to these sources, the title of apostle is exclusively conferred through divine revelation to the Prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ^[1]. This process involves no balloting or predetermined timetable, emphasizing that apostleship cannot be self-claimed but must come through proper ecclesiastical channels ^[1]. The calling carries specific responsibilities as special witnesses of Christ's name and involves building up the church under the direction of the First Presidency ^[2].

Traditional Christian theology presents a more restrictive view, arguing that true apostleship ended with the original twelve apostles plus Paul. These sources emphasize that biblical apostles required direct eyewitness testimony to the resurrected Christ and direct commissioning by Him ^[3]. One analysis strongly argues that Jesus's statement about the twelve apostles sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel indicates no additional apostles would be appointed ^[4]. This perspective views modern apostolic claims with deep skepticism.

Contemporary evangelical interpretations offer a middle ground, distinguishing between the foundational office of apostle and a broader missionary sense of the term. These sources acknowledge that while the specific foundational apostolic office is no longer present, the term "apostle" can apply in a general sense to anyone "sent out" by Christ to preach the gospel ^{[5] [6]}. However, they strongly advise against using the term for modern church positions to prevent confusion ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about denominational differences in understanding apostolic authority. The analyses reveal that different Christian traditions have fundamentally different theological frameworks for understanding this role.

Missing from the discussion is the Catholic perspective on apostolic succession, which would provide another major viewpoint on how apostolic authority is transmitted through episcopal ordination. The analyses also don't address Pentecostal and charismatic movements that often recognize modern apostolic offices as part of the "five-fold ministry."

The question also overlooks the practical implications of self-proclaimed apostleship. One source highlights the concerning trend of individuals claiming apostolic authority without proper accountability or oversight ^[7]. This raises important questions about ecclesiastical governance and spiritual authority that extend beyond theological definitions.

Historical context is also limited. While the sources mention the original twelve apostles and Paul, they don't adequately address the early church's understanding of apostolic succession or how different Christian communities developed their current practices regarding apostolic authority.

The analyses also miss discussion of interfaith perspectives or how other religious traditions might view similar concepts of divine commissioning or religious authority.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and genuinely inquisitive, avoiding obvious bias or misinformation. However, it does contain an implicit assumption that may reflect Western individualistic thinking - the idea that religious titles might be something one could simply "claim" rather than receive through established religious processes.

The question's framing suggests a binary choice between self-claiming and organizational conferment, which oversimplifies the theological complexity revealed in the analyses. This framing potentially misses the nuanced middle ground where some traditions recognize apostolic calling through spiritual gifts or divine revelation outside formal organizational structures.

No deliberate misinformation is present in the original question, but its simplicity may inadvertently minimize the deep theological divisions that exist on this topic. The question doesn't acknowledge that this is a contentious issue that has contributed to denominational splits and ongoing theological debates.

The phrasing also doesn't recognize that for many believers, apostolic authority is not merely an organizational matter but involves fundamental questions about divine revelation, biblical interpretation, and ecclesiastical legitimacy that have shaped Christian history for centuries.