I was just reading Acts 1 where they were replacing Judas. Nothing more is said in the Bible about apostles being replaced. But it seems like we should assume that they did replace them. Why doesn't the church have twelve apostles now?
OK, I'll answer this, but you oughta be old enough to get the easy ones yourself by now. (Go ahead, call me a brat!)
Jesus did, indeed, call twelve Apostles. Did he, or any other Bible writer, say that there should always be twelve apostles in the Church. Or any Apostles at all?
The Eleven did, indeed, replace Judas. Did any of them say that they should do that in the future? Is it logical to infer from those two events that there should always be Twelve Apostles (or even twelve apostles)?
Were there always Twelve Apostles in the New Testament. And only twelve? Was Paul the Apostle called by the other Eleven? He said he wasn't. He said he consulted no man. And he said he only went to Jerusalem to visit those who "seemed to be something" after seven years. And he didn't go to ask permission.
Were there ever more than twelve apostles in the New Testament? (As many as fifteen or sixteen, to be honest.)
Did God ever state that it was His will that the Church be hallmarked by twelve Aspostles? Did he give us much, of any, instructions for how to structure the Church? (Nope)
This kind of thinking is the great flaw of Mormonism. Take isolated pieces of scripture and build an iron clad doctrine on them. But it is not a legitimate way to interpret scripture. The Bible is very clear about what it wants to be clear about (adultery, for example). But it is unrestrictive when it wants to be (the shape and organization of the Church, for example).
The New Testament does not address homosexuality. So pro homosexulaity forces say Jesus must have approved of it.
Jesus washed the Apostles feet and said, "I have washed your feet, so you should was each others). Did he mean that metaphorically? (I think so). But some churches insist that the Church must wash feet.
The noninstrumental Churches of Christ say you can't use musical instruments in church because they find no instance of their use in the New Testament. Is that a reasonable conclusion? An argument form "no information" is no argument.
God expects us, I believe, to use our heads.
There, you are properly chastened. :)