M
Melchior_1
Guest
@tgGodsway - Meanwhile, about Acts 1, I wrote a bit in another thread regarding the Great Apostasy that Mormons believe, however it’s applicable here as well since Protestants deny the authority of the successors of the twelve, including the successor of Kephas.
A question lies on the successors of the Apostles, specifically in Acts 1:26, where we see the Apostles select a successor for Judas. To those who subscribe to a “Great Apostasy” and/or reject the authority of the present-day successors of the Twelve - did Matthias had the same authority as the original Apostles?
If the answer is “yes, Matthias had the same authority”, it presents a quandary. We clearly see that the Apostles had a mechanism in place for replacing one whom passes away. This mechanism would be repeated every time one of them died. So, at which point did the mechanism no longer work? At what point did the replacements for the original twelve no longer have the same authority? Is it after John died, the next series of replacements would no longer have the authority?
If the answer is “no, Matthias did not have the same authority”, it calls into question the methods and methodologies of the original Apostles, especially those they added to their ranks and chose to be their proteges.
Some argue Peter says "for one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection”, it ended there. But if eye-witness accounts are required, then Paul is certainly not an Apostle, since he didn’t personally witness the Resurrection. Neither did Titus, nor Timothy (the latter whom was a leader in the Church). Which then calls into question their authority. Luke and Mark also were not among the Twelve, meaning we must reject their authority as Gospel writers.
There’s no prohibition of ever replacing the Twelve again in that passage, rather it gives what Peter felt was the criteria. The criteria to be one of the Twelve and the means to elect them could certainly change over time, especially if someone held the office of Kephas and exercised that authority. During those moments, right after the Resurrection, the onus would have been to make sure someone was giving first-hand information As time went on and people held the traditions which they have been taught, whether by word, or epistle (please note this is implored by Paul in the Scriptures), this criteria possibly became less important.
I mean, does any Christian branch still cost lots to determine their leadership? The criteria and mechanism changed, but the office/role remained.
Please consider what I just wrote, but foremost please provide Scriptural evidence for the Sola Scriptura position.
A question lies on the successors of the Apostles, specifically in Acts 1:26, where we see the Apostles select a successor for Judas. To those who subscribe to a “Great Apostasy” and/or reject the authority of the present-day successors of the Twelve - did Matthias had the same authority as the original Apostles?
If the answer is “yes, Matthias had the same authority”, it presents a quandary. We clearly see that the Apostles had a mechanism in place for replacing one whom passes away. This mechanism would be repeated every time one of them died. So, at which point did the mechanism no longer work? At what point did the replacements for the original twelve no longer have the same authority? Is it after John died, the next series of replacements would no longer have the authority?
If the answer is “no, Matthias did not have the same authority”, it calls into question the methods and methodologies of the original Apostles, especially those they added to their ranks and chose to be their proteges.
Some argue Peter says "for one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection”, it ended there. But if eye-witness accounts are required, then Paul is certainly not an Apostle, since he didn’t personally witness the Resurrection. Neither did Titus, nor Timothy (the latter whom was a leader in the Church). Which then calls into question their authority. Luke and Mark also were not among the Twelve, meaning we must reject their authority as Gospel writers.
There’s no prohibition of ever replacing the Twelve again in that passage, rather it gives what Peter felt was the criteria. The criteria to be one of the Twelve and the means to elect them could certainly change over time, especially if someone held the office of Kephas and exercised that authority. During those moments, right after the Resurrection, the onus would have been to make sure someone was giving first-hand information As time went on and people held the traditions which they have been taught, whether by word, or epistle (please note this is implored by Paul in the Scriptures), this criteria possibly became less important.
I mean, does any Christian branch still cost lots to determine their leadership? The criteria and mechanism changed, but the office/role remained.
Please consider what I just wrote, but foremost please provide Scriptural evidence for the Sola Scriptura position.
Last edited:
