You can’t have it both ways, moon. Either it is an OT custom, or it is an unprecedented action. Which is it? Was Peter using an OT custom, or did he invent something new?
You do need to think before you post, guanophore. Peter did employ an O.T. custom by casting lots; what was unprecedented was choosing an Apostle among themselves. It’s Christ, as Head of the church, who chose His Apostles; that prerogative is Christ’s alone and was never theirs, and especially by casting lots. Peter still had an Old Covenant mentality; he eventually learned.
Which is why they cast lots. This was a method used to discern the will of God. You seem to be asserting that what Peter did was contrary to God’s intention. We are in agreement that scripture does not record everything, and the fact that scripture does not record how God led Peter to do this does not mean Peter was walking outside of God’s intention. Surely, God had the power to redirect Peter when it was necessary.
You mean you’re in agreement with me that Scripture reveals Peter had no direct instruction from Christ to choose another Apostle. All he was told, along with the others, was to not leave Jerusalem but wait for the Holy Spirit whom the Father had promised would come.
Yes, Jesus chose many to be Apostles. He chose Judas also. He send Judas to preach, teach, and heal. He chose Matthias, through the casting of the lot.
As I pointed out in my previous post, Judas never actually became an Apostle. He never saw the resurrected Christ and never took the message to the world of believing in this resurrected One for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43; 13:38) and the FREE GIFT of eternal life through faith in Him (Rom. 6:23). Judas hoped and initially believed that Jesus was the triumphant Jewish Messiah, revealed by the ancient prophets, who would liberate Judea from Rome, but he knew nothing of Jesus being the suffering Servant: The Savior of the world. Judas had no such saving faith.
Both things are true. IN the account of Matthias, we see clearly that the place that Judas left was considered an “office” and that when it was vacated, another should take it. However, you are correct that those who were appointed later to succeed the Apostles did not meet the criteria to be Apostles as Paul and Matthias did.
What was appointed in all the churches were
elders/
overseers (Gr.
presbuteros/episkopos). They’re one and the same office (Titus 1:5-7)Titus 1:5 "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders (
presbuteros) in every city as I directed you,"Paul doesn’t instruct to appoint “
successors” in every city. No such concept existed then or in Scripture. That concept developed and evolved AFTER the Apostolic age.
It is taught that they have both. Theirs is the office of bishop (shepherd, overseer, episkopos).
No. You yourself stated in an earlier post that your Bishops are not Apostles. And those in authority over you in Rome agree. A "presbuteros/episkopos is not an Apostle. A “
successor” is one who inherits some title or office. The appointed “
elders/overseers” inherited nothing of the sort. They were to teach, stand firm and exhort others in the doctrines taught to them by the Apostles (2 Thess. 2:15); and it’s upon the foundation of the Apostles that Christ is building His church (Eph. 2:20).
I see that the Catholic Church has preserved this little element of history unknown to some of our separated brethren. When Paul wrote to Rome, Peter had not yet been martryd, and did not need a successor.
Paul wrote to Rome because Peter was not there. If he had been Paul would have had no reason to write to that church. Or are you implying that maybe Peter was incompetent? There are no
contemporary historical accounts to prove Peter’s alleged position in the church at Rome. What is said about Peter in relation to that church was asserted AFTER his death. Not surprisingly not even Paul mentions him in the list of those to “
greet” at the end of his letter (Rom. ch. 16).
It is quite clear in the letters to Timothy and Titus that the Apostle expected these bishops to act in his authority in his absence, and to complete the duties of their office.
Neither Timothy nor Titus are called “Bishops.” In the Scriptures they’re identified as fellow workers/laborers in Paul’s Apostolic ministry to the churches he planted (1 Cor. 16:10; 2 Cor. 8:23).
I guess you must believe this fable in order to discount the Apostolic Succession. I think , though, if you are willing to undertake an honest study of the lives of the saints you wil see that this is untrue. The signs and wonders have not ceased.
There are many fables attached to your list of so-called “saints.” Can you give me a documented source that lists the wondrous works performed by each of your “popes?” Which ones, like Peter, raised the dead in the presence of others? Which healed men who were lame from birth? If the wondrous works of the Apostles were being performed by your Bishops all the world would be RC. Not necessarily saved, but RC.
I think this is very true in most cases. Most Modern American Evangelicals don’t even know there are such things as “Early Church Fathers” and have never read their writings.
There’s no such things as “ECFs.” There’s early church writers, but just because they wrote extant letters doesn’t make them “
fathers” of the church. As if their writings held some inherent authority. However, as you read their writings what stands out significantly is that they quoted Scripture profusely. So what we all should learn from them by example is the absolute authority of Scripture. Even “
Sola Scriptura”
