Succession of Bishops

[John_Henry]

Barnabas was named an Apostle in Acts 14:14 for a couple of reasons; first because he was one with Paul in thier ministry…

You will note that the verse you cite does not say what you say it says. It does not say that he was named an apostle because he worked closely with Paul. It merely says that he worked closely with Paul. And even if I grant your premise (which I don’t), St. Matthias could be called an apostle because of his close work with the other apostles.

Secondly because he was gifted with consolation and exhortation.

Same comment applies here. It doesn’t say that the qualities he is described as having are the reason he was called an apostle. That is the interpretive spin you have put on the text.

Barnabas was one of the disciples, but grew very respectable to the Apostles because of his particularly appreciated gift of “consolation”. He was very much appreciated by the Apostles for his exhortation…

That may be.

Again, as I stated in the article, one of the prerequisites of the office of Apostle, is to have seen Jesus Christ. Paul validates this in 1 Corinthians 9:1, and contrasts his positioin among the brethren with Barnabas’ position in that same chapter.

Once again, the verse doesn’t say that. It merely states 4 reasons why the Corinthians should be listening to Paul. One of those reasons is that he was an apostle. Another is that he saw Jesus Christ. That does not mean that to be an apostle, you have to “see” Jesus Christ. In fact, in verses 5 and 6 of that same chapter, far from “contrasing” his position with that of Barnabas, he implies that Barnabas is an apostle:

Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?

Although I appreciate the verse you presented, proof verses cannot be taken out of their immediate text, nor out of the text of the complete Bible as a whole. 1 Corinthians 9:1 is not negated by Acts 14:14. They agree harmoniously (as all scripture does).

It is up to us, when confronted with an apparent contradiction in scripture, to figure out where our understanding is lacking. The only way to do that is to study… which is a practice I believe you are given to.

So in this context, according to you, there were mitigating circumstances, to the point that, though Scripture refers to Barnabas as an apostle, he in fact was not an apostle? There is no contradition whatsoever is Scripture. I never said there was. Contradictions are only surfacing because you are twisting the plain and obvious meaning of Scripture in an attempt to deny apostleship to St. Matthias. When you make an obvious meaning of a verse mean something else, then there are no guarantees of non-contradiction.

 

[John_Henry]

Look back through the Gospels, all the apostles were called by Jesus Himself. Acts chapter 1 gives us the account of Jesus “sending” them personally. Acts 9 tells us that Saul was called personally by Christ, and sent, and saw Christ personally.

You can only claim that “all” the apostles were personally sent by Jesus if you deny apostleship to the apostles who weren’t. Like St. Matthias and St. Barnabas.

And you quote 1 Cor 9:5-6 as:

…power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

It is pretty devious to leave out the crucial part of the verse, the “we” of Paul and Barnabas, which clearly implies that Barnabas was an apostle too.

 

[Verita]

Look, the original 11 (after Judas died) Apostles certainly seemed to think that they had the authority and the need to elect Matthias as the 12th Apostles. They walked and talked with Jesus everyday and you think you know better than they what Jesus wanted and intended? You’re saying that they were wrong, that they were imposing a human tradition into the Church mere DAYS after Jesus ascended. And yet you, 2000 years after Jesus walked the Earth, are able to interpret correctly what Jesus really wanted. That is such unspeakable arrogance.

 

[djrakowski]

Look back through the Gospels, all the apostles were called by Jesus Himself. Acts chapter 1 gives us the account of Jesus “sending” them personally. Acts 9 tells us that Saul was called personally by Christ, and sent, and saw Christ personally.

You’re twisting yourself in circles here. Barnabas (Acts 14:14 clearly refers to him as an apostle) and Matthias (Acts 1:26 clearly refers to him as an apostle) were apostles who weren’t sent directly by Jesus, so therefore, your interpretation is rendered invalid. Acts 9 doesn’t say that Paul was an apostle because he was called by Jesus. You’re forcing your interpretation back into a rather plainly-stated text on the matter.

bibleapologist:

1 Cor. 9:1 substantiates this, and verifies that Paul is an Apostle becuase of this substantiation, and verse 2 of that same passage verifies that Paul was appealing to substantiate his Apostolic position.

1 Cor. 9:1 says nothing of the sort. It only lists a number of Paul’s characteristics in question form: apostle, has personally seen Jesus, is free, etc. It doesn’t list them any of these characteristics are prerequisite to any other.

bibleapologist:

In verses 5 and 6 of that same passage Paul distinguishes himself as holding a different office than that of Barnabas who have…

No, again, verses 5 and 6 confirm that Barnabas was an apostle - like Paul. Let’s quote verses 5 & 6 completely, so everyone can see the appropriate context:

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

 

[bibleapologist]

I stated…

…proof verses cannot be taken out of their immediate text, nor out of the text of the complete Bible as a whole. 1 Corinthians 9:1 is not negated by Acts 14:14. They agree harmoniously (as all scripture does). It is up to us, when confronted with an apparent contradiction in scripture, to figure out where our understanding is lacking…

What I have done, is neutralized the teaching of Mathias’ Bishoprick, and have laid the burden of proof on those of the Catholic faith to prove your position that Mathias was truly an Apostle.

John_Henry stated…

It is pretty devious to leave out the crucial part of the verse, the “we” of Paul and Barnabas, which clearly implies that Barnabas was an apostle too.

You make a good point John_Henry, but I am afraid you have taken the scripture out of text again.

The word “we” in verse 5 and 6 of 1 Corinthians 9 does not refer to the Apostolic office, but it refers to those who minister the gospel.

To interpret this passage correctly, we must regard the passage as a whole. In the beginning of 1 Cor. 9 Paul verified his Apostolic Office, and he used the word “I” (referring to himself only).

Verse 2 Paul verifies his Apostleship again by stating that their (Corninthians) conversions are proof of his Apostolic office… Again, Paul used the word “I”.

But, in verse 4 there is an obvious change in the Apostle Paul’s writing… he begins to use the word “we”. In verse 4 Paul was associating himself with others who preach the gospel by saying…

1Co 9:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
1Co 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Paul was saying that he, as an Apostle has no less right to be maintained by his converts than those other Apostles, and the brethren, and Cephas (who is Simon Peter). Although Paul in his peity chose to support himself in the ministry for the sake of the gospel.

Not Paul only worked to support himself in the ministry, but also Barnabas who travelled with him until they seperated in Antioch.

Here is the truth… Paul, when he used the word “we” was not referring to Barnabas as an Apostle, but only as one who also worked a trade to support himself in the ministry.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Church Militant, you said…

There is nothing in the New Testament that states that any of these will no longer be available to the church. It’s simply not there…not even by implication.

Not only does the scripture teach that Mathias and Barnabas were not Apostles, and that Paul took the Bishoprick of Judas to total 12 Apostles. The scripture most certainly does imply that the Apostolic office will cease.

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the **twelve apostles **of the Lamb.

How many Popes does the Catholic Church claim? It doesn’t matter because their names are not going to be written on the Twelve Foundations of New Jerusalem.

That kind of makes it hard to accept the writings of the “Early Church Fathers” as authoritative.

By the way… the article that I referenced earlier “The Twelfth Apostle” was actually an article that I wrote in another place first… “Vincent Serpa on Acts Chapter 1”

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[John_Henry]

What I have done, is neutralized the teaching of Mathias’ Bishoprick

Uh, what you’ve done is neutralized scripture. And demonstrated the lengths an anti-Catholic will go avoid the most obvious statements of scripture. I mean, first of all, granting the premise (which, again, I don’t), whether Barnabas is an apostle or not doesn’t affect whether Matthias was one or not. And when it comes to that, you have twisted yourself into the pretzeliest of pretzels to avoid the plain meaning of scripture. Judas’ spot was vacated. It was filled by the apostles, through lot casting, which Prov. 16:33 states is a means of accomplishing the will of God. Period. But no, it can’t be that Matthias was an apostle, because that verse is (very weak, by itself) evidence of the apostolic succession. So now we have to go into wild speculations. If no one had ever heard of the apostolic succession, Acts 1 would be the biggest slam-dunk in scripture. Ah, but agendas, how they can twist things…

You make a good point John_Henry, but I am afraid you have taken the scripture out of text again.

Oh, I’m the one twisting scripture. Right! I forgot. You know how to rightly handle the word…

The word “we” in verse 5 and 6 of 1 Corinthians 9 does not refer to the Apostolic office, but it refers to those who minister the gospel.

Wrong. In verse 5, he clearly refers to the rights of “apostles” to be accompanied by wives, rhetorically asking why “we” therefore should not be allowed to do the same. The clear implication is that “we” are “apostles” and therefore have the right to be accompanied by wives. If Barnabas is not an apostle, the structure of the argument breaks down, as the obvious response from the imagined interlocutor would simply be, “Barnabas is not an apostle.” Likewise in 6, “apostles” have the right to abstain from work for a living. He then rhetorically asks why “Barnabas and I” have not the same right. The logical inference is that Barnabas and Paul are apostles, and are thus entitled to the rights of apostles.

To interpret this passage correctly, we must regard the passage as a whole. In the beginning of 1 Cor. 9 Paul verified his Apostolic Office, and he used the word “I” (referring to himself only). Verse 2 Paul verifies his Apostleship again by stating that their (Corninthians) conversions are proof of his Apostolic office… Again, Paul used the word “I”.

So far so good. Paul is an apostle. No one argues.

But, in verse 4 there is an obvious change in the Apostle Paul’s writing… he begins to use the word “we”. In verse 4 Paul was associating himself with others who preach the gospel by saying…

A change, yes, but it does not necessitate the conclusion that Paul is now no longer speaking of apostleship, as is clearly demonstrated in verse 5, when he explicitly refers to apostleship again. One needs to seek for a reason that Paul would go from speaking about himself as an apostle to speaking of both of them as apostles. And any number of things could be suggested, guesses though they would be. For instance, Paul being the primary apostle to have laid the groundwork at Corinth.

Paul was saying that he, as an Apostle has no less right to be maintained by his converts than those other Apostles, and the brethren, and Cephas (who is Simon Peter). Although Paul in his peity chose to support himself in the ministry for the sake of the gospel.

But again, what he actually says is “Barnabas and I”. “Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?”

Here is the truth… Paul, when he used the word “we” was not referring to Barnabas as an Apostle, but only as one who also worked a trade to support himself in the ministry.

One can only arrive at this “truth” by starting out with an agenda, and then seeking to find a way (any way!) to support that agenda. If this is “contextualizing” leave me out of it.

 

[John_Henry]

Not only does the scripture teach that Mathias and Barnabas were not Apostles, and that Paul took the Bishoprick of Judas to total 12 Apostles.

It’s as if you think that by saying it a lot, somehow you have made a convincing case.

How many Popes does the Catholic Church claim?

265

It doesn’t matter because their names are not going to be written on the Twelve Foundations of New Jerusalem.

Are you saying Popes are apostles? Or that we say that? Or something?

That kind of makes it hard to accept the writings of the “Early Church Fathers” as authoritative.

The fact that there are twelve foundation stones of the New Jerusalem invalidates what early Christians believed? What? Oh, you said authoritative. As if to imply that we think them authoritative, like a third canon of scripture or something? Uh, we just use them to help understand what the early Church believed. They are no more athoritative than Calvin is to understand what 16th century heretics believed. And I’m not saying you like Calvin. I’m sure he is somehow an apostate too.

By the way… the article that I referenced earlier “The Twelfth Apostle” was actually an article that I wrote in another place first… “Vincent Serpa on Acts Chapter 1”

The wisdom of Fr. Serpa is more and more evident. Apparently he knew full well the type of person that argues that St. Matthias was not an apostle. And he apparently also knew that the best response is a hearty laugh. To argue with it almost gives it more credibility.

 

[bibleapologist]

John _Henry,

The tone of your posts have definitely changed… as if I am making personal attacks that require you to react. I am not fighting you personally.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

That spiritual wickedness is all I care to wrestle against. That being said…

You stated…

Judas’ spot was vacated. It was filled by the apostles, through lot casting

But, according to prophecy, and inspiration of the Holy Ghost through David unknowingly prophecied about Judas’ deception.

Psalm 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up [his] heel against me.

Since that office was vacated by Judas own free-will for “filthy lucre’s” sake, the spot needed to be filled. That being according to God, not Peter in Acts 1:20.

Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office.

I have a couple of questions for you…

1. If an unlimited number of Apostles were allowed for by God, why would someone need to fill the Bishoprick of Judas? Couldn’t the other 11 Apostles just have split the duties that remained after the death of Judas?
2. Why didn’t the other 11 Apostles also not elect Justus, since he was decidedly just as worthy to be counted an Apostle as Mathias? What limited the remaining 11 Apostles to only electing Mathias?
3. According to Peter (in Acts 1:20), Psalm 109:8 was prophecy pertaining to the vacated office that Judas held. The word “take” in Acts 1:20 was translated from the greek word: “lambano” which is an active verb that means to “grab hold of”. Why was this word used rather than the more passive tense of that verb; “dechomai” which means “to accept”.

2Co 8:17 For indeed **he accepted **the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you.

Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

Mathias did nothing to “take” the title that was “offered” to him… he only “received” it.

On the other hand, Paul was not accepted by the other Apostles because of his past actions concerning the Christians (Acts 9:26). Paul had to “take” the Apostolic office that was given to him by Christ and convince the other Apostles that he was an Apostle.

1. Does the Catholic Church teach that Paul was an Apostle? The reason I ask this is twofold: a. Paul was never elected, or appointed by the other Apostles. b. I have talked to several Catholic pastors and teachers who have told me the CC does not regard Paul an Apostle but only a teacher of doctrine, and a disciple.

As for your statement…

Are you saying Popes are apostles? Or that we say that? Or something?

The Pope… is the Bishop of Rome, and, as Successor of Saint Peter. When used in the singular, “the Apostolic See” referred to the see whose bishop claimed to be the successor of Saint Peter, who in this context is singled out as “the apostle”. Source1 Source 2

No, but the Pope does.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

As for your statement…

Quote:
Are you saying Popes are apostles? Or that we say that? Or something?

Quote:
The Pope… is the Bishop of Rome, and, as Successor of Saint Peter. When used in the singular, “the Apostolic See” referred to the see whose bishop claimed to be the successor of Saint Peter, who in this context is singled out as “the apostle”. Source1 Source 2

No, but the Pope does

I take it you are claiming that

…who in this context is singled out as “the apostle”

refers to the Pope. In the context of the whole thing you quoted, it refers to Peter being referred to as “the apostle”. It is not calling the Pope an apostle. I’m not a Catholic, but I am studying and thinking about the Protestant - Catholic divide. So, I could be mistaken, but the way I think about it is that inherent in being an apostle is being a bishop (but not the other way around…being an apostle is not inherent in being a bishop). So, the Pope is a successor to Peter’s office of Bishop (because he was Peter, succeeding him means being the head of the Church…aka the Pope), but being a Pope is not being a successor to the apostleship.

The Pope doesn’t get revelation like Peter did - the Catholics admit that - so it is clear the a Pope’s succeeding Peter doesn’t mean that he succeeds Peter in every way and in everything.

TO ACTUAL CATHOLICS: please correct my errors. I’m just trying to explain how I think about it.

 

[bibleapologist]

BigTurkey,

If that is the way Catholics view the Pope, I will concede to that point. But, I am under the impression that is what “Apostolic Succession” is; to succede the previous Apostle.

If you are right, and Catholics don’t view the Pope as an Apostle, then there is no reason to argue that Mathias was an Apostle, or Barnabas… it makes my whole argument nuetral… but it also nullifies many of the comments made on this thread, along with the Authoritative role of the Pope, and any Canon Law beyond the Mosaic Law.

But, it does seem that the CC truly does view the Pope as an Apostle in a very real sense…

CCC #863 The whole Church is apostolic, in that she remains, through the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles, in communion of faith and life with her origin:

CCC #869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

CCC #862 "Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops."375 Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

Of course, I am no authority…I’m not a Catholic (though I am studying the issue).

If the apostleship was multi-faceted (they were pastors to the Church (CC 862), witnesses to the resurrection, they had teaching authority, etc.), then it is it not conceiveable that bishops succeed the apostles in several of the “facets”, but not all? If so, and having all these facets were necessary to be an apostle, then one could succeed the apostles without being an apostle (by succeeding them in several of their roles but not all of them).

Hypothetically, let’s say there are three “properties” that make up an apostle: a, b, and c. To be an apostle is to have all three. Now, one could succeed an apostle by taking up roles a and b, but not be an apostle because one doesn’t have c.

At CC 860, it is said that one aspect of the office of the apostle can’t be transmitted, i.e. witness to resurrection and foundation of church. So, using my above reason (hopefully it wasn’t fallacious), it would seem that would could succeed the teaching office of an apostle but not the things mentioned in 860. So, a bishop has succeeded an apostle (to the teaching office), but has not become an apostle.

Could you be more specific about where in the three quotes that you see the Pope being called an Apostle? The church is called apostolic, but that doesn’t mean it has to have apostles. If you read around in the sections concerning apostolic succession in the Catechism, you’ll see that they say that to mean they can trace their bishops back to the apostles; the church has a continuity with the apostles both in history (through the apostolic succession) and through teaching. So, be careful not to interpret apostolic in a way that the catechism is not using it.

In several places, it says the the successors to the apostles took the place of the apostles. But, if you notice, in every case that it says that, there is always a qualifier like “…as…” You can treat that qualifier as telling you what aspect (or facet, to use the language from the first paragraph) of the apostleship the bishop is taking over (i.e. pastors of the church, from CC 862: “…the bishops have…taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church…”)

Perhaps I am wrong about this; perhaps my defense contradicts other teachings on the church. Sorry if it does: I’m still learning.

Hopefully I’ll get a chance tomorrow to read the whole thread. Look forward to discussions. I’m actually sick, so I should be in bed trying to rest so that I can heal.

(Catholic: please correct my errors about this)

BT

 

[bibleapologist]

BigTurkey,

Where I saw that the bishops were successors to the Apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Peter’s apostleship is…

CCC #863 The whole Church is apostolic, in that she remains, through the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles, in communion of faith and life with her origin:

CCC #869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

The “Apostolic Succession” could maybe be better understood as illustrated by King Saul. He was made the first king of Israel, which means he was the “witness” to the act of God allowing a king, and Israel becoming a kingdom… But that didn’t make David (his successor) any less the king of Israel. The moment David was anointed by Samuel he became the king of Israel (although he did not take the office). As far as God was concerned, David was the king of Israel, because he had chosen him, and he was anointed (consecrated and sanctified). The Papal, and Bishop’s offices are supposed to be no different, the Pope has succeded Peter in the eyes of Catholics.

CCC #862 "Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops."375 Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ

Notice in CCC #375 listed above, the opening remark of that paragraph is “Hence the Church teaches”. This is what I oppose, the Catholic Church’s teaching on the matter. Which is what brought about the article “The Twelfth Apostle”

John
www.gideonsword.net

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

BTW - If I have mis-represented the Catholic teaching on this… I would welcome any comments.

Bear in mind though, in order to debate the Catholic Church’s position on Apostolic Succession, we must first ascertain what we believe the early Catholic Leaders’ intentions were when they elected a pastoral successor to Peter.

I am challenging Catholics to present these proofs…

1. That Peter was the Pastor at the Church in Rome. If you can prove that historically, then prove…
2. That when the Church of Rome elected Linus as their second pastor, they intended to preserve the Apostolic Office of Peter. If you can prove that historically, then prove…
3. That the Church of Rome then had warrant to attempt to preserve the Apostolic office of Peter and any Pastor thereafter. Please prove this scripturally.

If you can’t do that, then I will assume that the historical record I gave in my essay is accurate (which I can substantiate historically)…

“Catholic Persecution” Proof that Catholic Doctrine and Canon Law Justifies the Persecution of Heretics

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

Where I saw that the bishops were successors to the Apostles, and the Pope is the successor to Peter’s apostleship is…

Quote:

CCC #863 The whole Church is apostolic, in that she remains, through the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles, in communion of faith and life with her origin:

Quote:

CCC #869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

These are exactly the passages I was addressing in my previous post. It is clear that you are stuck on trying to read into these quotes a view that is amiable to your attack upon Catholicism. However, that view is not there. If you are trying to claim that the Catholic belief that the Bishops are the Apostles successors in every way, then you are clearly wrong. Just read around the Catechism a little more. Read CC 860! It clearly refutes that view. The Bishops are NOT like the apostles in every way. They are not witnesses to the resurrection, and they are not the foundation stones of the Church. CC 860 clearly says this.

You wrote:

How many Popes does the Catholic Church claim? It doesn’t matter because their names are not going to be written on the Twelve Foundations of New Jerusalem.

You’re correct that they are not going to be the “twelve foundations”, but this isn’t something new to the Catholics! They admit it in CC 860.

So, it is clear that when the Catholics call bishops the successors to the Apostles, they are not trying to say that the Bishops are Apostles. The two things mentioned in CC 860 are part of being an apostle, but their successors do not get to have those two functions. Therefore, they do not succeed the apostles in every way and are not Apostles for that very reason.

You make the claim that the apostolic succession is better explained by David’s succession to Saul. Do you have proof for this? It is clear that the way you are wanting to use this example makes it incongruous with the Catholic’s view of apostolic succession. You say that David was no less King than Saul. Okay! Good! This proves that you are wrong in suggesting that David’s succession to Saul is a good example. CC 860 makes it clear that there are things the successors to the apostles can’t succeed the apostles in. In your next post, will you please quote CC 860 and explain how you understand that passage. (Remember, however you explain it, you can’t allow for there to be a difference between an apostle and a bishop. Otherwise, your argument falls.)

All the passages you have quoted have not said that the bishops succeed the apostles in every respect. Notice that in every case there is a specific aspect of the apostleship that the bishops have succeeded, such as the teaching authority, the pastorship, the permenancy of the position, etc. Never is there a claim that the Bishops are apostles. You are reading that into the passages.

Notice the following sentence so that you can see how someone can succeed another without being exactly like the other:

“bibleapologist succeeded the president as commander-in-chief.”

Now, you would be the successor to the president as commander-in-chief, but there is nothing in the sentence that tells us you have taken over every aspect of the presidency, such as being the head of the executive branch. You would be rightly called the successor to the president, but everyone would understand that you would not be succeeding him in all aspects, only in a particular one. This, I suggest, is how to understand Catholics’ talk about the bishops succeeding the apostles.

-BT

 

[BigTurkey]

Also, as a fellow Protestant, it seems to me that you have gone to great lengths to resist Catholicism. You have imposed an awkward interpretation of the election of Matthias. This is recognizable in your article “The Twelfth Apostle”. You never prove that Matthias wasn’t a choice of God. You simply read that into the text. You claim that Paul was the successor to Judas, but notice that Saul didn’t become Paul until after James’s death in Acts 12. So, could it be that Paul was taking James’s place instead of Judas’s place? I’m not saying I endorse this view, I’m simply pointing out that your interpretation is not the only one open.

You say:

So when the lots were cast to enable God to chose between Justus and Matthias, it may not have been Matthias that God chose, but that Matthias was simply the one on whom the lots fell. Now, I agree that God does move in such ways as to manipulate tangible objects, but did the eleven apostles actually have the liberty to only give God two candidates? Of course not, and God (since He is not a magic genie in a lamp) was not bound to move in the exact way in which He was invoked to move by Peter’s prayer.

Matthias was chosen by men, not necessarily by God.

Notice the bold parts. You have no Scriptural proof that the apostles did not hae the liberty to apoint two candidates. Surely, the Creator of the universe could have made sure that one of the two was the one he wanted. Are you denying that?

You also say that Matthias was not necessarily chosen by God. But, isn’t that a possibility? It seems to me that if I had to choose whether you or the Catholics twisted the Scriptures the most, I would have to cast my lot for you, who claims sola Scriptura.

Here is a quote for the distinguished Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce:

“It has sometimes been suggested that the apostles were wrong in co-opting Matthias to complete their number; that they should have waited until Paul was ready to fill the vacancy in God’s good time. This is a complete mistake. Paul did not possess the qualifications set out in vv. 21 f. Besides, his apostleship was unique in character, as he himself maintains; he would certainly have dismissed as preposterous the idea that he was rightfully the twelfth apostle on the same footing as the rest of the eleven.” p. 52 The Book of the Acts.

-BT

 

[bibleapologist]

You never prove that Matthias wasn’t a choice of God.

You’re right, I haven’t proven, beyond any doubt that God didn’t choose Matthias. But I have proven that the Catholic Church has no foundation there to base Apostolic Succession. And I have given many scriptural references as to why it is very probable that God did not choose Matthias.

You have no Scriptural proof that the apostles did not hae the liberty to apoint two candidates. Surely, the Creator of the universe could have made sure that one of the two was the one he wanted. Are you denying that?

Of course not, God could have inspired Peter to speak up in Jerusalem about the need for the scripture to be fulfilled, He could have made sure that Mathias was present, He could have inspired the other Apostles to examine Mathias as a possible candidate, and God was absolutely capable to manipulate the lots to fall on Mathias.

But it is that same, All Powerful God, who made sure that He manipulated the events necessary to preserve His Word for us today (the Bible). And it states in that preserved Word (as I have already taught) that the one to succede Judas was to “take” his office, not “accept” it.

The office of Judas’ Bishoprick was given by Christ (as all the Apostles), the office was not given by men. 1 Corinthians 9:1 Paul states…

Am I not an apostle? am I not free?

He was “free” because the office was not given by men, neither was he subject to men, he was not taught, sent forth, or ordained by men… He was an Apostle of Christ.

The same cannot be said of Mathias.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

But it is that same, All Powerful God, who made sure that He manipulated the events necessary to preserve His Word for us today (the Bible). And it states in that preserved Word (as I have already taught) that the one to succeed Judas was to “take” his office, not “accept” it.

In the KJV “lambano” is translated “receive” 133 times as opposed to being translated “take” 106 times. According to Strongs, lambano can mean “to receive what is offered”. According to Thayer’s it can mean “to receive (what is given)”. Whether it is to be translated “take” or “receive”, it still doesn’t prove anything. I can take something that is offered to me!

Also, in Thayer’s passage on “lambano”, he lists Acts 1:20 as an example of the sense where “lambano” means to “receive (what is given)”. It is similar to the sense in Matt. 10:41 (according to Thayer’s) “Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward…” The bolded receive is the example. So, it doesn’t seem as if the “take” in Acts 1:20 is a grabbing of something not offered.

So, it seems that one can understand Acts 1:20 as Matthias accepting the office that was offered to him by God working through the Apostles and their casting of lots.

So, in conclusion, you admitted that God could have worked through the apostles to pick Matthias. Your defense (I’m not saying this is your only defense, but it was the only one in your previous post) was that in Acts 1:20 the word “take” should have been something like “accept”. However, I have shown that the word translated “take” can also be translated “receive”. So, it seems that your argument from Scripture loses most, if not all, of its force.

Three more points:

1. If the apostles could bind and loose on earth, and what they bound and loosened on earth would be bound and loosened in heaven, then could this not apply to Matthias’s apostleship?
2. You claim that Christ did not personally appoint Matthias, and you believe this to be evidence that the appointment of Matthias to be a circumvention of God’s will. Yet, isn’t an apostle a delegate, someone who is officially sent by another? If so, couldn’t Christ have appointed Matthias through his existing apostles? If so, then wouldn’t Matthias’s appointment be an appointment personally from Jesus sent through Jesus’s delegates? I think so.
3. It seems strange that we do not see the apostles rebuked for such hubris as to appoint someone to be Christ’s personal delegate that Christ didn’t invite! We see many cases of revelation, and it is odd that there was no revelation that rebuked the apostles’ actions. It is also strange that we do not see the removal of Matthias’s apostleship or any mention that Matthias was no longer an apostle (or never was one). Do you see an explicit rebuke in Acts? Where? (Don’t point to Paul, because that is not explicit. Your appeal to Paul rests upon your proof that Matthias’s appointment was not valid and therefore a successor was needed - who turned out to be Paul).

It seems as if your argument is pure speculation. (I say this respectfully. Please, please, please do not take anything I say as a personal attack.) I have shown that your claim concerning the meaning of the Greek word is incorrect; I have also shown that, scripturally, it is at least possible and at best highly probable, that Matthias was rightfully appointed.

Respectfully,

BT

 

[bibleapologist]

2983 λαμβάνω [lambano /lam·ban·o/] v. A prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses; AV translates as “receive” 133 times, “take” 106 times, “have” three times, “catch” three times, not translated once, and translated miscellaneously 17 times.

I really only have time for a short post, so I will use one example and let you research the other 132 places “lambano” is translated “received”. (We can discuss other verses later if you want )

Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

The word received in the previous text was translated from “lambano”. Since “lambano” is a verb, Acts 8:15 implies an action from those in Samaria who had heard the Word of God. They were prayed for, not that they would be filled with the Spirit as the Charismatics suggest, and this verb cannot mean that those people in Samaria “took” the Holy Ghost by force. It can only mean that the believers in Samaria had to act upon the free offer of the Holy Ghost… which was what Peter and John were praying for… again that they would “take what was offered to them”.

Mathias didn’t have to “take” anything. The 11 Apostles did everything for him, they set him apart, they cast lots, and the lots fell on Mathias… then he was counted with the 11 Apostles

And he is never heard from again.

So, did Mathias accept what was offerred? Apparently not, we don’t see any record of him evangelizing or teaching or anything. All we are told is that he was numbered with the 11 Apostles.

Numbered by whom? I say he was numbered with the 11 Apostles by the Apostles themselves… who imposed their will on him, and placed something on his shoulders that we are never told he accepted responsiblility to act upon.

Mathias did not fulfil Acts 1:20, or Psalm 109:8 to “take”, “accept” or “receive” the office of Judas’ Bishoprick.

BTW - It is a pleasure to debate when there is kindness in words. Thank you!

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

BibleApologist,

Look at the last words Jesus told the Apostles in Matthew (28:19-20):
"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Either Jesus gave the Apostles a task that He knew they could not fulfill, or He knew they would appoint Bishops and Priests in their places to continue to spread the Gospel to all the nations after their deaths.

St. Paul instructs Timothy to teach with authority, describing a means of passing on the authority of priests and bishops that continue today (1st Tim. 4:14): Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.

And then here St. Paul shows Timothy to continue to pass this authority on to others so that they can instruct. Here we have at least three “generations” of teaching authority - Paul to Timothy to others: (2nd Tim. 2:2) - And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.