I was watching a video on youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLh8xnf_Qx0 That I didn't have an answer for. He gives the argument that Matthias became the 12th apostle by the casting of Lots. And then he says that Barnabas and Paul were referred to also by the words apostles. So he argues that apostleship continues on into the current age. What is the contest to this?
All he seems to be doing is widening the traditional understanding of the word "apostle" to it's original Greek meaning, which is "messenger".
I don't see a problem with that on an academic level.
That being said, I think his redefinition and reuse of the word in the modern world is unnecessary and argumentative. Why use the word "apostle" when the word "missionary", "evangelist" or "church planter" is far more widely understood, accepted, and has the same meaning in modern language?
I think he would do well to let go of his insistence, and in humility, repeat with John the Baptist in John 3:30:
Because, to paraphrase Paul in Galatians 2:6: "What we are makes no difference. God shows no partiality."
The word "apostle" has two meanings in a Protestant Christian context. From http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Apostle.htm
Then the second one was given:
In this more "ordinary" sense of the term, the answer is an obvious "yes".
However, I wanted to address the other meaning of the term: An Apostle in the sense that the original twelve were Apostles.
Most Christian denominations believe that Apostleship in this sense ended with the original twelve. However, certain denominations, such as the LDS Church believe that Apostleship in an authoritarian sense has been re-established and continues to this day.
Further, the Catholic Church teaches Apostolic Succession, which indicates that an official line continued from the original twelve, more in the sense that you seem to be asking.