Protestants, Why 12 Apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlie_Zeaiter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zooey said:
Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote. someplace, that “The tragedy of Judas is that he could have been St Judas”.

In any case, he was one of the 12 apostles…
Now the argument I have heard made (& which I think is a:hypno: :doh2: **really **wild and :whacky: :whacky: stretch!!), is that “the only reason God called Paul on the road to Damascus, was because the disciples had:eek: :eek: sinned by appointing Matthias”.:dts:
Now there is an example of **real **weaselling:shrug:…IMNSHO.
Click to expand...
Which means I guess they sinned by recording it in the NT.

Which also causes a problem: Is St. Paul the 13th Apostle? 12th? Why not Barsabs Justus?

Acts 1. Titus 1. I Timothy 3. II Timothy 2, etc. Gotta connect the dots.
 
mozart-250 said:
If I recall the quote correctly, that is quite convincing at least on the basis of history. I would like to see a Protestant response to that quote saying either (1) it is not apostolic succession (I’m reading the quote wrong or out of context) or (2) it is not historically accurate (there are other historical sources that contradict Clement).

However the laying on of hands in the New Testament does not necessarily mean succession. Succession means replacement of one by another. One can not conclude by reading these New Testament passages that the objects of these activities were replacing somebody else. In fact since there was no mention of any deaths in these passages, the natural explanation would be that they were not.
Click to expand...
Titus 1:4-9
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Which means I guess they sinned by recording it in the NT.

Which also causes a problem: Is St. Paul the 13th Apostle? 12th? Why not Barsabs Justus?

Acts 1. Titus 1. I Timothy 3. II Timothy 2, etc. Gotta connect the dots.
Click to expand...
Desperation is:shrug: never a pretty sight, is it?? I think my :eek:chin, my mother’s:eek: chin, and my grandmother’s:eek: chin all:ouch: :hypno: :doh2: hit the ground simultaneously.
 
Zooey said:
Desperation is never a pretty sight, is it?? I think my chin, my mother’s chin, and my grandmother’s chin all hit the ground simultaneously.
Click to expand...
I hope like this: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bible1: :highprayer:
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Try Titus 1:4-9
Click to expand...
This passage refers to the appointing of elders in every city and the qualifications that these elders must have.

Again, who are these elders replacing?

Remember that in the book of Acts the church was expanding numerically and geographically. The more credible position to me is that these are new elders made necessary because of an expanding church.

Again, I don’t want to tell you how to argue your case, but I think you would do better making a historical argument here. Take the quote by Clement and than ask the stupid question on whether a neutral historian would conclude that apostolic succession was a historic fact based on this quote (I think one would unless there are contradictory quotes by other church fathers). Then if you can establish the historical accuracy of apostolic succession (I would really like to see this argued out) you could ask the stupid question on whether the apostles were wrong.
 
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110)
 
40.png
mozart-250:
BTW you must have the wrong Scripture in Titus 2:14. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
Sorry…One verse further…

**Titus 2:15 **Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
 
mozart-250 said:
And how this relates to the topic at hand??:confused:
Click to expand...
Paul is writing to Titus… 1:1…He tell Titus to appoint elders as he appointed Titus 1:5. Paul tell Titus that Titus has “all authority” in the matters of teaching what Paul has handed on to him 2:15.

You argued that there is no succession of apostles’ authority. The Bible says otherwise.

“Apostles” were those that walked with Jesus–there were 12.

In Acts it explains why they replaced Judas:

***Acts 1:20 ***“For it is written in the Book of Psalms,
“‘May his camp become desolate,
and let there be no one to dwell in it’;

and
“‘Let another take his office.’
***21 ***So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, **22 **beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

That’s why Judas was replaced, but no others–HOWEVER, the authority of the Apostles was handed on to worthy disciples such as Titus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top