Answering old threads thread Part II

[Clete]

Then if nobody decided anything, there wasn't a 12th apostle. Somebody decided who the 12th would be, right?

This made no sense whatsoever.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let's say your children gave you 2 choices. 1. Bring home pizza for dinner, or 2. Take everbody out for burgers. Let's also say that you had other plans (grilling steaks).

So the children cast lots to see which one of their 2 choices you had to do. The lot lands on pizza.

Do you bring home pizza or do you grill steaks?

Considering I gave them the authority to decide what they want to do, I would go along with whatever they chose.

I wouldn't grill steaks.

However, if the circumstances changed after they chose, that prevented me from continuing in providing the food they chose, then I would switch to the plan of grilling steaks.

To apply this:

God gave the Apostles, particularly Peter, the authority to steer the ship, so to speak. He decided to choose a twelfth member to replace Judas, and then they did so, and in a biblically consistent manner (see https://kgov.com/lots). Then, a year later (Luke 13:6-9), God finally had enough of Israel's rebellion against Him and cut off unbelieving Israel (Acts 7:54), and so turned to working with the Gentiles (Acts 9).

Only simple if you've already decided that God's choice was to let the apostles choose the candidates, when He might have had other plans.

Why do you think He had other plans?

As stated previously, there was an entire year between Christ's ascension and Paul's encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.

And every indication was that God had approved of Matthias being chosen, as 1) Scripture states he received the Holy Spirit along with the other eleven disciples on the day of Pentecost, and 2) as Scripture states explicitly, "he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

How do you know this?

Besides James, tell me your source(s) for any other apostle's martyrdom.

See Clete's earlier post.

I'm not the one who decides what the requirements are. Are you?

No.

Were the apostles?

Yes.

If you say yes, then you're begging the question. If you say no, then you're agreeing with me.

OR, just maybe, we're basing our answer on scripture, specifically Jesus' words in Matthew 16:16-19.

Remember Narnia, how all 4 thrones had to be filled by sons of Adam and daughters of Eve? And if one wasn't filled, Narnia wouldn't see spring again? How do we know that it doesn't require all 12 thrones to be filled by a direct choice of Jesus Christ for them to have that authority?

Because God approved of Matthias being numbered with the eleven apostles, by filling him along with the other eleven apostles literally a few verses after he was chosen, as I showed you previously.

You're arguing from silence.

You clearly don't know what an argument from silence is.

Yes, it does. Compare these two scriptures:
[Tit 1:1 KJV] Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
[2Pe 1:1 KJV] Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Tell me from those two verses how Peter and Paul have different offices, different authority?

By their ministries, what they taught, how their ministries are presented in scripture, and other things.

As I said, it's an argument from silence.

Supra.

meaning your system drives your understood scripture, rather than scripture driving your understanding.

Look in a mirror, Derf.

The hidden part was that Gentiles and Jews would be fellow heirs.

... in the Body of Christ... Which was also hidden.

Except the ministry of the 12 wasn't discontinued, else they wouldn't have all been martyred, save John.

Except that it was. It ended (died out would probably be a more accurate term) with the deaths of the Twelve. No one has been called under the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel since then, because it's not in effect, and won't be until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

Then if nobody decided anything, there wasn't a 12th apostle. Somebody decided who the 12th would be, right?

You're being extremely dishonest here, Derf. That's called a bait and switch. The claim was that no one "decided" that it was God's choice to let the apostles choose the candidates, because that's literally what scripture says happened!

 

[Derf]

This made no sense whatsoever.

It does in context. It was in answer to this, from you:
'It isn't someone "deciding" anything'

 

[JudgeRightly]

It does in context.

No, it doesn't, because you changed the topic.

It was in answer to this, from you:
'It isn't someone "deciding" anything'

Which was in response to this:

Only simple if you've already decided that God's choice was to let the apostles choose the candidates, when He might have had other plans.

No one has decided that God's choice was to let the Apostles choose the candidates. That's LITERALLY what Scripture describes. The Apostles chose two candidates, and then cast lots to determine which should take Judas's place. You're trying to make this about the Apostles's choosing candidates, but we're talking about what Scripture says happened, and it not being "decided upon" by us what Scripture says.

I quoted Scripture. You dismissed it as though I had somehow decided that that's what Scripture should say.

It's extremely dishonest of you, and you're definitely not being a good Berean here.

Again, Scripture says, QUOTE:

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,And let no one live in it’;and,‘Let another take his office.’ “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 1:15-2:4

They left the decision up to God.

What I said here stands:

You're being extremely dishonest here, Derf. That's called a bait and switch. The claim was that no one "decided" that it was God's choice to let the apostles choose the candidates, because that's literally what scripture says happened!

 

[Clete]

It does in context. It was in answer to this, from you:
'It isn't someone "deciding" anything'

Derf, just stop. This is bordering on an intentional lie. Just stop.

 

[Idolater]

I know he's no longer with us to respond, but I thought this deserved an answer, since nobody answered it when he posted it:

Not a few Roman Catholics do not know that even Vatican I states that the church holds these books to be canonical not because of the church’s authority but because they have God as their author.

Those unaware of the above hence see the issue becoming how the Roman Catholic church establishes its own authority. Well, if the church is to be infallible, then it must have an infallible foundation for its infallible authority. Where is this infallible foundation?

The Apostles, and therefore Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Pick one:
1. Scripture is the source for the infallibility of the church.
If so, then the circularity of the church grounding the canon and the canon grounding the church cannot be avoided.
2. External evidence from the history of the church.
If so, then historical evidence is infallible. Sigh.
3. The church is itself self-authenticating.

4. The Apostles, who established and held the institution of the office of bishop (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1), and created many bishops themselves, charged them with preserving and teaching all that the Apostles taught them, and with creating new bishops.

Why then Rome's cry that Reformer's assert Sola Scriptura is self-authenticating while advocating self-authenticating Sola Ecclesia?

Straw man. See above.

It should not be in dispute that the earliest Christians did have a canon, namely, the Old Testament itself (Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:6, 2 Tim. 3:15-16), which seems to have existed just fine prior to Roman Catholicism.

It was called the Septuagint, and the only Bibles with the entire Septuagint are Catholic Bibles.

Moreover, there are no reasons to think that the Israel of Our Lord's day had any infallible revelation from God that helped it choose the books of the Old Testament canon.

Red herring, as Our Lord's Apostles had the power to approbate the Scripture books and did, including and starting with the Septuagint.

From the very earliest days, Paul's letters were received by believers as Scripture (1 Thes. 2:13). Paul clearly intended them to be received as Scripture (Gal. 1:1-24), and even other writers thought they were Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).

Thus, the Scriptures themselves never give the impression that their authority was derivative from the church, or from some future ecclesiastical decision.

Peter and Paul were Apostles with the authority to dictate which writings were Scripture, including their own.

Not until Trent in 1546 was a formal declaration made one the canon of the Bible. A declaration that included particularly the Apocrypha.

"Apocrypha" is part of the Septuagint, and the Church never called these seven books "Apocrypha" as that is a Protestant term. The whole idea of cancelling certain books from the ancient canon is entirely Protestant.

So given the above, are we to believe Rome's claim that without them there would be no New Testament? That no canon existed for over fifteen hundred years until Trent? I think a proper reading of history shows the church had a proper functioning canon long before Trent and even the fourth century councils.

Catholicism doesn't dispute this.

I think it was Packer who once said, the church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity…Newton did not create gravity but recognized it.

And the Church recognized gravity starting with the Septuagint.

This is why the WCF Ch. 1. plainly states:

3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (Luke 24:27, 44, Rom. 3:2, 2 Pet. 1:21)​

Declaratory. Saying it doesn't make it so.

​

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (2 Pet. 1:19, 21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13)​

What about the Apostles?

​

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13-14, 1 Cor. 2:10-12, Isa. 59:21)​

AMR

And the Apostles.

 

[Clete]

I know he's no longer with us to respond, but I thought this deserved an answer, since nobody answered it when he posted it:


The Apostles, and therefore Our Lord Jesus Christ.


4. The Apostles, who established and held the institution of the office of bishop (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1), and created many bishops themselves, charged them with preserving and teaching all that the Apostles taught them, and with creating new bishops.


Straw man. See above.


It was called the Septuagint, and the only Bibles with the entire Septuagint are Catholic Bibles.


Red herring, as Our Lord's Apostles had the power to approbate the Scripture books and did, including and starting with the Septuagint.


Peter and Paul were Apostles with the authority to dictate which writings were Scripture, including their own.


"Apocrypha" is part of the Septuagint, and the Church never called these seven books "Apocrypha" as that is a Protestant term. The whole idea of cancelling certain books from the ancient canon is entirely Protestant.


Catholicism doesn't dispute this.


And the Church recognized gravity starting with the Septuagint.


Declaratory. Saying it doesn't make it so.


What about the Apostles?


And the Apostles.

Your crying "the Apostles" and giving it a number 4 doesn't work. It is the equivalent of AMR's option 3. Christ and then the Apostles and then those appointed by the Apostles and then those appointed by those bishops, etc, etc, etc. is "the church" (according to Catholic dogma). Thus, as AMR's number 3 states, "The church is self-authenticating" and thus his argument is not a straw man at all.

 

[Idolater]

Neat question posed by Knight:

toldailytopic: What is the main reason(s) you accept, or reject, God that exists?

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for December 7th, 2009 10:22 AM toldailytopic: What is the main reason(s) you accept, or reject, God that exists? Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic...

theologyonline.com

Some good answers in there too.

My own personal reasons: As said on the first page, primitive, initial order. Miracles. And well attested miracle claims.

First of all primitive order had to come from somewhere, and that is either God or it "emerged" all on its own, the latter I feel is unlikely.

Miracles because that's how God Himself proves His own existence, always has.

And well attested miracles claims (distinct from miracles), because that is surprising on atheism, but unsurprising if God exists. Meaning, if God is real, we should expect well attested miracle claims.

 

[Idolater]

Your crying "the Apostles" and giving it a number 4 doesn't work. It is the equivalent of AMR's option 3. Christ and then the Apostles and then those appointed by the Apostles and then those appointed by those bishops, etc, etc, etc. is "the church" (according to Catholic dogma). Thus, as AMR's number 3 states, "The church is self-authenticating" and thus his argument is not a straw man at all.

OK. Then 3 is correct. Note that your "Christ and then the Apostles and then those appointed by the Apostles and then those appointed by those bishops, etc" is literally Scripture. That's literally how it happened, in Scripture. The Scripture records the very beginning of the chain, which is a chain created by the imposition of hands. Today's bishops were made by bishops who were made by bishops ... etc., etc., etc. ... who were made by bishops who were made by the Apostles. It's a single unbroken chain of the laying on of hands, and it began in the Apostolic era and it was recorded right in the Bible.

 

[Derf]

No, it doesn't, because you changed the topic.



Which was in response to this:



No one has decided that God's choice was to let the Apostles choose the candidates. That's LITERALLY what Scripture describes.

The scriptures describe the events, yes. The scriptures don't tell us that God made the choice.

The Apostles chose two candidates, and then cast lots to determine which should take Judas's place. You're trying to make this about the Apostles's choosing candidates, but we're talking about what Scripture says happened, and it not being "decided upon" by us what Scripture says.

I quoted Scripture. You dismissed it as though I had somehow decided that that's what Scripture should say.

I quoted scripture, too, that supports my view. Are you suggesting that merely quoting scripture ascribes to it our personal meaning? Of course you don't believe that, but it seems like you do sometimes.

It's extremely dishonest of you, and you're definitely not being a good Berean here.

Again, Scripture says, QUOTE:

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms:‘Let his dwelling place be desolate,And let no one live in it’;and,‘Let another take his office.’

“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

Notice
1. Peter sets the criteria. It is not necessarily Jesus' criteria.
2. Matthias is not called an apostle here, but merely a witness.
3. To Peter it's an "office". I dont deny that it comports well with "sitting on twelve thrones", but does that mean the same as an apostle?

From what I remember, "apostle" means "sent one". Obviously Jesus could have more than 12 "sent ones", but could Matthias even be considered an apostle with that definition? Paul certainly could, and he claims the title for himself a couple times. Matthias never does, as far as we know. We never hear about 12 APOSTLES until Revelation, which is decidedly AFTER Paul is recognized as an apostle of Jesus Christ.

And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

So, if the apostles had the authority from God to limit His choices for the 12th apostle, why didn't they have the authority to just pick one?

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 1:15-2:4

"All" includes non-apostles, right? The scripture doesn't say "all of the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit", and Peter's sermon makes it clear that the Holy Spirit was available to all who repented. So why do you highlight "all", as if that somehow tells us Matthias is special ("apostle").

They left the decision up to God.

What I said here stands:

There are many that say the use of lots ended. Your link says so, even. And at least some of those many say they know this by the way it was used incorrectly to choose Matthias. The fact (from scripture) that Matthias was numbered with the eleven gives no indication as to who was doing the numbering. Was it God? Or men? If you answer, please give a scripture reference.

 

[Right Divider]

Notice
1. Peter sets the criteria. It is not necessarily Jesus' criteria.

How do you know that "Peter sets the criteria"?
How do you know that Jesus did not give him that criteria?

2. Matthias is not called an apostle here, but merely a witness.

Acts 1:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.​

How in the world do you get that Matthias "was numbered with the eleven apostles" and yet he was not an apostle? That is ridiculous!

 

[Derf]

How do you know that "Peter sets the criteria"?
How do you know that Jesus did not give him that criteria?

The same way you know that Jesus DID.

Acts 1:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.​

How in the world do you get that Matthias "was numbered with the eleven apostles" and yet he was not an apostle? That is ridiculous!

Nevertheless, what I wrote is compatible with scripture. If you want to call scripture ridiculous, well, I would caution against it.

 

[Right Divider]

The same way you know that Jesus DID.

I never claimed that I know that Jesus did.
Just like you don't know that Jesus didn't.

Why do you think that it's impossible that Jesus gave them this information during His FORTY DAY kingdom training? Is it not a reasonable deduction to believe that Jesus' kingdom training included how to get back to 12 apostles for the twelve tribes of Israel?

Luke 22:29-30 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; (22:30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ​

Nevertheless, what I wrote is compatible with scripture.

Not the part about Matthias not being an apostle.

If you want to call scripture ridiculous, well, I would caution against it.

Again, with the rank stupidity. Scripture is perfect; you are dumb.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The scriptures describe the events, yes. The scriptures don't tell us that God made the choice.

Yes, it does (cf. Acts 2:1-4).

I quoted scripture, too, that supports my view.

The problem is that it also supported my view, or at least, didn't contradict my position.

Notice
1. Peter sets the criteria. It is not necessarily Jesus' criteria.

Peter was given the authority to do so by Jesus Himself.

2. Matthias is not called an apostle here,

Special pleading. Keep reading.

but merely a witness.

As RD pointed out, and as Scripture states quite clearly, yes, he is.

"He was numbered with the eleven apostles" isn't clear enough for you?

3. To Peter it's an "office". I dont deny that it comports well with "sitting on twelve thrones", but does that mean the same as an apostle?

The word used in 1:20 is EPISKOPEN (G1984). It means oversight, supervision, overseership.

A throne, which is a symbol of authority on it's own, is a good place to do that.

From what I remember, "apostle" means "sent one". Obviously Jesus could have more than 12 "sent ones", but could Matthias even be considered an apostle with that definition?

The Great Commission was given by Jesus to the TWELVE as a group (in line with Israel being a nation, and her covenant being a corporate covenant, rather than a covenant made with individuals).

Matthias being chosen to fill the role of Judas which was open (an empty throne) puts him squarely under that same Great Commission, thus making him an Apostle by way of inheriting the role of Judas.

Paul certainly could, and he claims the title for himself a couple times.

Indeed. He also says that he was sent to the gentiles, whereas the Twelve were to start in Jerusalem and work their way outwards.

Kind of hard to go to Gentiles at all if Christ was to return before they could get through all the cities of Israel.

Matthias never does, as far as we know.

An argument from silence, at best.

We never hear about 12 APOSTLES until Revelation, which is decidedly AFTER Paul is recognized as an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Which is perfectly in line with what we (M.A.D.s) have been saying this entire time, that Acts is a transition book, showing the cutting off of Israel, and the grafting in of the Body under a different dispensation.

You're literally making my case for me.

So, if the apostles had the authority from God to limit His choices for the 12th apostle, why didn't they have the authority to just pick one?

Go read the link I posted. It explains why.

There's a reason why I stated that they did so "in a Biblically consistent manner."

"All" includes non-apostles, right? The scripture doesn't say "all of the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit", and Peter's sermon makes it clear that the Holy Spirit was available to all who repented. So why do you highlight "all", as if that somehow tells us Matthias is special ("apostle").

1) You'd think that Peter, et al, would have heard directly from God between when they chose Matthias and the Day of Pentecost if God was not at least OK with Matthias being chosen.
2) If Matthias was not whom God wanted to replace Judas, then Peter and the others would have been acting outside the will of God, no? Which puts them in the wrong, and thus in need of repenting, no? There was no need to repent, and so, at the very least, God was fine with their decision of Matthias.
3) Forgetting Paul for a moment, what reason do you have to say, specifically with regards to Matthias, that Peter and the others should not have chosen someone to replace Judas? That Matthias was not the one God wanted? Every indication is that God wanted twelve people as His witnesses, and that Peter had the authority from God Himself to choose a replacement.
4) Scripture says that Matthias was chosen as a replacement for Judas, and gives ZERO indication that

There are many that say the use of lots ended.

So?

Your link says so, even.

For certain things, yes. But not for everything.

It also puts the casting of lots to replace Judas squarely under the category that has since ended.

And at least some of those many say they know this by the way it was used incorrectly to choose Matthias.

They say it was used incorrectly because they have a belief they are trying to protect, that being that Paul was the replacement, not Matthias.

Get rid of the a priori belief that Paul replaced Judas, and the "in-" prefix goes away.

The fact (from scripture) that Matthias was numbered with the eleven gives no indication as to who was doing the numbering.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. The very fact that Scripture says that he was numbered with the eleven apostles is all that is needed to know that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. You literally have to come to scripture with the a priori belief that Paul is the one who replaced Matthias in order to cast doubt on that phrase.

Ask any 3rd grader what that phrase means, and he'll tell you that it means that Matthias became the twelfth apostle.

Was it God? Or men? If you answer, please give a scripture reference.

The author of Acts (that being Luke the Physician). Who was inspired by God, and who recorded the events described in Acts.

Also, the other eleven Apostles, who cast the lots, who were in a position of authority to do so.

And finally, God Himself, who inspired that Luke record those words.

My scripture is the very passage in question, AND Acts 6:2, where Peter, et al, is referred to as "the twelve," BEFORE Paul is chosen.

Paul hadn't even been introduced yet, and Scripture refers to them as "the twelve," which reinforces the statement that Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles as being a statement that Matthias had indeed officially replaced Judas. (And before you ask "why doesn't it say 'the twelve apostles then?" It's because the Apostles have been the main focus for most of the previous chapter, so it's understood that the verse is talking about the Apostles.)

Also, for an external (to the Bible) source that claims Matthias was Judas's replacement...

A text claimed to be written by Hippolytus of Rome documented the names of the seventy apostles sent out by Christ (which is in no way an official catalogue), includes Matthias, "who supplied the vacant place in the number of the twelve apostles."

One final note:

In the Old Testament, the casting of lots was used to determine what God had already decided, not to provide a means for humans to make the choice.

Peter specifically states, in line with this, in Acts 1:24:

And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 1:24 - New King James Version

And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen

www.biblegateway.com

And even if God had no hand in choosing Matthias, I think it's safe to say that using lots to choose who should succeed Judas was an exercise in humility that God did in fact honor.

 

[Clete]

OK. Then 3 is correct.

Then AMR's argument stands unrefuted.

Note that your "Christ and then the Apostles and then those appointed by the Apostles and then those appointed by those bishops, etc" is literally Scripture. That's literally how it happened, in Scripture. The Scripture records the very beginning of the chain, which is a chain created by the imposition of hands. Today's bishops were made by bishops who were made by bishops ... etc., etc., etc. ... who were made by bishops who were made by the Apostles. It's a single unbroken chain of the laying on of hands, and it began in the Apostolic era and it was recorded right in the Bible.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Clete]

One final note:

In the Old Testament, the casting of lots was used to determine what God had already decided, not to provide a means for humans to make the choice.

Peter specifically states, in line with this, in Acts 1:24:

And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 1:24 - New King James Version

And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen

www.biblegateway.com

And even if God had no hand in choosing Matthias, I think it's safe to say that using lots to choose who should succeed Judas was an exercise in humility that God did in fact honor.

I wish more people thought along these lines and made certain decisions in a manor that didn't put them in the position to make the final call. It's so obviously wise to whittle down the options to a very few good choices and then leave the final decision up to God by the casting of lots. Maybe God decides to get involved directly or maybe He decides that the specific choice doesn't matter and so lets the lots fall where they may. Regardless, you've humbled yourself and honored God. It's an excellent way to keep God foremost in your mind and directly involved in your life.

Of course, then one has to guard against falling into putting their faith into the act of casting of lots rather than in God, which for some would be a significant temptation but even with that hazard, it seems a wiser method than just having someone decide for themselves or, worse yet, to put important decisions to a popular vote.

 

[Derf]

I never claimed that I know that Jesus did.
Just like you don't know that Jesus didn't.

Why do you think that it's impossible that Jesus gave them this information during His FORTY DAY kingdom training? Is it not a reasonable deduction to believe that Jesus' kingdom training included how to get back to 12 apostles for the twelve tribes of Israel?

Luke 22:29-30 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; (22:30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ​

Possibly, but you're justifying an argument from silence.

Not the part about Matthias not being an apostle.

"Apostle" isn't the problem. There were many apostles. But one of the 12 apostles handpicked by Jesus?

Again, with the rank stupidity. Scripture is perfect; you are dumb.

Back at ya.

 

[Derf]

Yes, it does (cf. Acts 2:1-4).



The problem is that it also supported my view, or at least, didn't contradict my position.

That's my point. if it doesn't contradict either position, then it can't be used to affirm one over the other.

Peter was given the authority to do so by Jesus Himself.

Careful. You're sounding like @Idolater.

Special pleading. Keep reading.



As RD pointed out, and as Scripture states quite clearly, yes, he is.

"He was numbered with the eleven apostles" isn't clear enough for you?

It is clearly saying that people considered him to be of the same office as the eleven. It doesn't say "God numbered him with the eleven apostles."

The word used in 1:20 is EPISKOPEN (G1984). It means oversight, supervision, overseership.

A throne, which is a symbol of authority on it's own, is a good place to do that.

Sure. I already granted that he could be considered as one of the leaders of the church.

The Great Commission was given by Jesus to the TWELVE as a group (in line with Israel being a nation, and her covenant being a corporate covenant, rather than a covenant made with individuals).

No, it was given to some unknown number of people, at least 13. I agree that it was a corporate instruction (not sure if it counts as a "covenant").

Matthias being chosen to fill the role of Judas which was open (an empty throne) puts him squarely under that same Great Commission, thus making him an Apostle by way of inheriting the role of Judas.

Assuming your position that he was the one chosen by God to fill the role of Judas.

Indeed. He also says that he was sent to the gentiles, whereas the Twelve were to start in Jerusalem and work their way outwards.

And to Israel.
[Act 9:15 KJV] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Kind of hard to go to Gentiles at all if Christ was to return before they could get through all the cities of Israel.

Not if you divide the labor.

An argument from silence, at best.



Which is perfectly in line with what we (M.A.D.s) have been saying this entire time, that Acts is a transition book, showing the cutting off of Israel, and the grafting in of the Body under a different dispensation.

Which I don't have a problem with, except when you delineate between the church of the eleven (or 12, even) and the church of Paul.

You're literally making my case for me.



Go read the link I posted. It explains why.

I'll read it more when I can.

There's a reason why I stated that they did so "in a Biblically consistent manner."



1) You'd think that Peter, et al, would have heard directly from God between when they chose Matthias and the Day of Pentecost if God was not at least OK with Matthias being chosen.

Why?

2) If Matthias was not whom God wanted to replace Judas, then Peter and the others would have been acting outside the will of God, no? Which puts them in the wrong, and thus in need of repenting, no? There was no need to repent, and so, at the very least, God was fine with their decision of Matthias.

For a leader of the church in Jerusalem, sure.

3) Forgetting Paul for a moment, what reason do you have to say, specifically with regards to Matthias, that Peter and the others should not have chosen someone to replace Judas? That Matthias was not the one God wanted? Every indication is that God wanted twelve people as His witnesses, and that Peter had the authority from God Himself to choose a replacement.

A couple of reasons. One is the title Paul uses, as I pointed out already. Two is that Jesus chose Paul specifically. This is in keeping with:
[Jhn 15:16 NKJV] "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.

4) Scripture says that Matthias was chosen as a replacement for Judas, and gives ZERO indication that



So?



For certain things, yes. But not for everything.

It also puts the casting of lots to replace Judas squarely under the category that has since ended.



They say it was used incorrectly because they have a belief they are trying to protect, that being that Paul was the replacement, not Matthias.

Get rid of the a priori belief that Paul replaced Judas, and the "in-" prefix goes away.

I'm not going to "get rid of" something that seems to be supported by scripture.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. The very fact that Scripture says that he was numbered with the eleven apostles is all that is needed to know that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. You literally have to come to scripture with the a priori belief that Paul is the one who replaced Matthias in order to cast doubt on that phrase.

It's not "a priori" if it's coming from other scripture, as I pointed out.

Ask any 3rd grader what that phrase means, and he'll tell you that it means that Matthias became the twelfth apostle.

Yet Paul became an apostle as well, and not a different type of apostle:
[1Co 4:9 NKJV] For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.
[1Co 9:5 NKJV] Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as [do] also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
[1Co 12:28 NKJV] And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.
[2Co 11:5 NKJV] For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.
[2Co 12:11 NKJV] I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing.

The author of Acts (that being Luke the Physician). Who was inspired by God, and who recorded the events described in Acts.

Also, the other eleven Apostles, who cast the lots, who were in a position of authority to do so.

To fill "an office" perhaps, but perhaps not to "choose a replacement apostle of Jesus Christ".

And finally, God Himself, who inspired that Luke record those words.

My scripture is the very passage in question, AND Acts 6:2, where Peter, et al, is referred to as "the twelve," BEFORE Paul is chosen.

Of course, since he was "numbered with the eleven". That was what they (inclusing Matthias) were called. Certainly Luke would call them that.

Paul hadn't even been introduced yet, and Scripture refers to them as "the twelve," which reinforces the statement that Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles as being a statement that Matthias had indeed officially replaced Judas.

Officially? Sure, as an officer of the church. But not as an "apostle of Jesus Christ", assuming they were limited to 12.

(And before you ask "why doesn't it say 'the twelve apostles then?" It's because the Apostles have been the main focus for most of the previous chapter, so it's understood that the verse is talking about the Apostles.)

I'll grant that, including Matthias suffering persecution with the others, and probably performing miracles with the others.

Also, for an external (to the Bible) source that claims Matthias was Judas's replacement...

A text claimed to be written by Hippolytus of Rome documented the names of the seventy apostles sent out by Christ (which is in no way an official catalogue), includes Matthias, "who supplied the vacant place in the number of the twelve apostles."

That makes sense to me, since it was one of Peter's criteria.

One final note:

In the Old Testament, the casting of lots was used to determine what God had already decided, not to provide a means for humans to make the choice.

Peter specifically states, in line with this, in Acts 1:24:

And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 1:24 - New King James Version

And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen

www.biblegateway.com

And even if God had no hand in choosing Matthias, I think it's safe to say that using lots to choose who should succeed Judas was an exercise in humility that God did in fact honor.

I don't doubt that God honored it. Matthias seems to have been involved in both miraculous signs and in persecution along with the other apostles. And he was martyred for his testimony. My position rests solely on the particular choosing of Paul by Jesus Christ, in person, visibly even.

 

[Right Divider]

Possibly, but you're justifying an argument from silence.

No, I am NOT. Please educate yourself, as you do not know what an argument from silence is.

"Apostle" isn't the problem. There were many apostles. But one of the 12 apostles handpicked by Jesus?

Your idea of "handpicked" is silly. Matthias was chosen by God and numbered with the eleven apostles... That makes twelve apostles chosen by God for the nation of Israel.

Back at ya.

Moronic, but par for the source with PCD.

 

[Clete]

Possibly, but you're justifying an argument from silence.

Why do you keep saying this? It makes no sense. He very clearly is not making an argument from silence.