The selection of Matthias "A MISTAKE" (Bible Study Fellowship)

[You]

The Scriptures say the Apostles chose a man whom they believed met the requirements of an Apostle. Maybe they were wrong, but the Book of Acts would still accurately record their wrong choice. If we start assuming that everything uttered by an Apostle in the context of a historical narrative is to be absolutely trusted, then we run into a few problems with Peter’s denial. Now I’m just arguing for fun here - I personally think the Apostles were right in ordaining Mathias. But even if they weren’t, there’s no need to say the Scriptures are inaccurate.

But the Apostles wrote the account after the fact, not while it was actually happening. So if they were recording later what had been a mistake they would have recorded that fact as well. They would have said, maybe; ‘…well, we drew lots and chose a new guy but later we found out that we were wrong’. And since they did not record that they were wrong in choosing a replacement we can conclude that it was the correct thing to do and everything worked out fine.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Given this position then would you postulate that entire books of the Bible could be wrong? Say, James, let’s say I think that is entirely wrong, Can I rip it out and declare it non-canonical? Why? Why not?

If it was a “wrong choice” Scripture would have recorded the negative result of the “wrong choice” as it does all over the Old and New Testaments. In fact this is a bizarre position.

The Epistle of James is a work of theology, so either it is correct or incorrect. But the Book of Acts is HISTORY. And history records both the good and the bad, true statements and untrue statements. There’s no law that says Scripture has to mention the ill results of every single ill action.

 

[pablope]

The Epistle of James is a work of theology, so either it is correct or incorrect. But the Book of Acts is HISTORY. And history records both the good and the bad, true statements and untrue statements. **There’s no law that says Scripture has to mention the ill results of every single ill action./**QUOTE]

Then if this is the case, then why do you protestants state that it is the sole rule of faith…if by your own admission, it does not contain everything. If it does not contain all ill results…then it should follow that it does not contain everything about the faith also, right?

Well, I asked a very sola scriptura protestant this question, in a discussion on the canonization of the Bible.

I asked him to prove to me who authored the Gospel of Mark by citing the chapter and verse, and after he located this, to tell me why he believes the Gospel should be in the Bible. After several days of evading, finally this is his response:

[SIGN]Now concerning the authorship of Mark, it is not the Gospel of Mark, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
The name Mark is simply a designator to distinguish it from the other Gospel writings. Who authored the Gospel has no major consequence on the text itself. [/SIGN]

 

[Bran_Stark]

Then if this is the case, then why do you protestants state that it is the sole rule of faith…if by your own admission, it does not contain everything. If it does not contain all ill results…then it should follow that it does not contain everything about the faith also, right?

Of course it doesn’t contain “everything” about the Faith. It does, however, contain “all things necessary to salvation”.

 

[JRRTFAN]

The Epistle of James is a work of theology, so either it is correct or incorrect. But the Book of Acts is HISTORY. And history records both the good and the bad, true statements and untrue statements. There’s no law that says Scripture has to mention the ill results of every single ill action.

Would you give me some other examples where it doesn’t show negative results of wrong actions?

 

[JRRTFAN]

Of course it doesn’t contain “everything” about the Faith. It does, however, contain “all things necessary to salvation”.

Where does it make that claim?

 

[lna419]

Yes, but he isn’t mentioned at any point in time after the 1st chapter of Acts. Matthew certainly wrote his gospel at a later time but he only covers from 1-33 A.D.

does it matter if something is not mentioned in the bible or if it is mentioned very few times?

 

[lna419]

This is a fairly common view–I remember being taught this by my grandmother as at least a highly likely possibility.

The basic reason is the one suggested by “Bran Stark”–that God’s purpose was for Paul to be the twelfth Apostle, replacing Judas.

However, I can see how this could be an argument against apostolic succession. The main argument against AS, though, is simply the listing of Paul as an apostle in the first place. This doesn’t bother me any more, but back when I was really uncertain about AS this did seem to me to be a significant argument. In other words, I’m not sure that it’s fair to say that the BSF folks are desperately trying to come up with an argument against apostolic succession so much as that they are starting from the one thing in the NT that could legitimately be said to point against apostolic succession–the fact that the most important of all the “Apostles” doesn’t seem to have been chosen as an Apostle in any regular way, and goes out of his way in Galatians to claim that his apostleship came straight from God and not from any kind of human procedure such as that described in Acts 1.

edwin

her is some food for thought.

According to the timeline in the scriptures, it was probably several years after Pentecost before Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was actually saved. Waiting several years to replace Judas would not have been within God’s will.

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then **the twelve **called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. Acts 6:1-4

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve… 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

So we see here that Luke, who wrote Acts, knew that Paul was not numbered with the twelve and Paul even did not consider himself one of the twelve.

as far as the drawing of lots:

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing [decision] thereof is of the LORD. Proverbs 16:33

The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty. Proverbs 18:18

God was still the final say when they drew lots.

 

[TimothyH]

as far as the drawing of lots:

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing [decision] thereof is of the LORD. Proverbs 16:33

The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty. Proverbs 18:18

God was still the final say when they drew lots.

Nice. Thanks for the OT reference.

 

[lna419]

The Scriptures say the Apostles chose a man whom they believed met the requirements of an Apostle. Maybe they were wrong, but the Book of Acts would still accurately record their wrong choice. If we start assuming that everything uttered by an Apostle in the context of a historical narrative is to be absolutely trusted, then we run into a few problems with Peter’s denial. Now I’m just arguing for fun here - I personally think the Apostles were right in ordaining Mathias. But even if they weren’t, there’s no need to say the Scriptures are inaccurate.

The scriptures are inerrant. As I posted before, lots have been drawn before and allowed by God knowing tha he is the final word.

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing [decision] thereof is of the LORD. Proverbs 16:33

The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty. Proverbs 18:18

 

[lna419]

The Epistle of James is a work of theology, so either it is correct or incorrect. But the Book of Acts is HISTORY. And history records both the good and the bad, true statements and untrue statements. There’s no law that says Scripture has to mention the ill results of every single ill action.

The bible is an inerrant work from God written by God. So are you saying that our all knowing God was wrong. Afterall we are suppose to believe that these are the true words of God himself.

 

[Zenas]

does it matter if something is not mentioned in the bible or if it is mentioned very few times?

I’m not sure what your getting at, but if you create a time line and put on said line all events related in the Bible, the only apostles mentioned by name after Pentecost would be Peter, James and John. Of course we know through tradition and extra-biblical writings that these other apostles all went out to various parts of the world and spread the gospel. All of them except John met a martyr’s death.

But I don’t think you appreciate the extent that some fundamentalist groups rely exclusively on the Bible for their religious information. I have had more than one fundamentalist type tell me very plainly that the only apostle who ever left Palestine was Peter, who made it to Antioch (Galatians 2:11) and to Babylon (1 Peter 5:13)(and they believe this is the Babylon on the Euphrates River). Why do they say this? Bacause the Bible gives no account of them ever leaving Palestine and going anywhere.

Now getting back to Matthias, this is claimed as one of the consequences of Peter and the others going ahead on their own volition to select a 12th apostle to replace Judas. Because of this impetuous act, God attenuated their influence and it never spread beyond Palestine. So instead of the original 12, God selected Saul of Tarsus (Paul) as His missionary to the world.

 

[lna419]

I’m not sure what your getting at, but if you create a time line and put on said line all events related in the Bible, the only apostles mentioned by name after Pentecost would be Peter, James and John. Of course we know through tradition and extra-biblical writings that these other apostles all went out to various parts of the world and spread the gospel. All of them except John met a martyr’s death.

But I don’t think you appreciate the extent that some fundamentalist groups rely exclusively on the Bible for their religious information. I have had more than one fundamentalist type tell me very plainly that the only apostle who ever left Palestine was Peter, who made it to Antioch (Galatians 2:11) and to Babylon (1 Peter 5:13)(and they believe this is the Babylon on the Euphrates River). Why do they say this? Bacause the Bible gives no account of them ever leaving Palestine and going anywhere.

Now getting back to Matthias, this is claimed as one of the consequences of Peter and the others going ahead on their own volition to select a 12th apostle to replace Judas. Because of this impetuous act, God attenuated their influence and it never spread beyond Palestine. So instead of the original 12, God selected Saul of Tarsus (Paul) as His missionary to the world.

What?

What does any of that even mean. read my other post and maybe you’ll get a clue. Not trying to bash my christian brother but it sounds like you said God punished the apostles for making the wrong choice.
It also sound like you said the bible gives no account of them going nowhere.

and finally my point was that trinity is not mentioned in the bible but people believe it and the anti christ is never mentioned and people believe. 666 is i believe mentione once. It doesn’t matter how many times it’s mentioned if at all. Thats why the bible can’t be the soul rule of faith. Last thing John says is that not all thing Jesus said could be contained in the books. So this means that he said other things that were taught the we only know through tradition.

 

[Zenas]

What does any of that even mean. read my other post and maybe you’ll get a clue. Not trying to bash my christian brother but it sounds like you said God punished the apostles for making the wrong choice.

Now calm down, Ina. I did say that but I didn’t say I believe it which I don’t. Read my post a little more carefully and you will see that I am telling you what a lot of fundamentalists believe. I am not a fundamentalist. Those who subscribe to this theory, and there are quite a few who do, wouldn’t exactly characterize this as punishment but punishment is basically the bottom line. When you say God attenuated their influence, it is pretty much the same thing.

It also sound like you said the bible gives no account of them going nowhere.

Yes I did say that and it doesn’t, except for Peter, who I mentioned, and John who I forgot to mention, but we know from the Bible that he spent some time on the island of Patmos. You cannot show from the Bible that any of the others ever went anywhere. I will gladly admit my error if you can demonstrate otherwise. Now, before you blow a fuse again, go back and read the first paragraph of Post 32.

and finally my point was that trinity is not mentioned in the bible but people believe it and the anti christ is never mentioned and people believe. 666 is i believe mentione once. It doesn’t matter how many times it’s mentioned if at all. Thats why the bible can’t be the soul rule of faith.

Actually Antichrist is mentioned several times in 1 John and 2 John.

Last thing John says is that not all thing Jesus said could be contained in the books. So this means that he said other things that were taught the we only know through tradition.

Agreed 100%. But fundamentalists don’t pay much attention to that verse.

 

[TimothyH]

Now I’m just arguing for fun here - I personally think the Apostles were right in ordaining Mathias. But even if they weren’t, there’s no need to say the Scriptures are inaccurate.

Isn’t that what the UCC’ers do all the time, argue among themselves for fun?

What creed to use, if God is a he or a she, if same sex unions sould be supported or not…

…only to come up with with statements like “As individual members of the Body of Christ, we are free to believe and act in accordance with our perception of God’s will for our lives” and “In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity.”



-Tim-

 

[lna419]

Now calm down, Ina. I did say that but I didn’t say I believe it which I don’t. Read my post a little more carefully and you will see that I am telling you what a lot of fundamentalists believe. I am not a fundamentalist. Those who subscribe to this theory, and there are quite a few who do, wouldn’t exactly characterize this as punishment but punishment is basically the bottom line. When you say God attenuated their influence, it is pretty much the same thing. Yes I did say that and it doesn’t, except for Peter, who I mentioned, and John who I forgot to mention, but we know from the Bible that he spent some time on the island of Patmos. You cannot show from the Bible that any of the others ever went anywhere. I will gladly admit my error if you can demonstrate otherwise. Now, before you blow a fuse again, go back and read the first paragraph of Post 32. Actually Antichrist is mentioned several times in 1 John and 2 John. Agreed 100%. But fundamentalists don’t pay much attention to that verse.

my mistake, your right about the antichrist. Now maybe not by name but by the phrase the twelve can be said that they were told to go to all nations. We just dont have an itinerary. I read the first paragraph of post 32. Not sure why you wanted me to read again.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Catholics shouldn’t argue with each other about exactly how wrong non catholics are–they’re wrong!

Some of them are wrong because they’re ignorant of the Catholic faith and the truth and some are wrong because they have been taught wrong and that comes by influence of the devil–the devil was the architect of the reformation!

In any event we should pray for them and try to bring them into the Catholic Church.

The first time I went to a Catholic Church I was astounded about how BIBLICAL the mass was! It was almot TOTAL BIBLE!

The people there were loving and loved Jesus!

I became a Catholic this Easter. It was the greatest thing that has ever happened in my entire life!

I wasn’t stupid before becoming a Catholic–I knew much of the bible–I was just IGNORANT about the Catholic faith–when I learned it I couldn’t get over how WRONG I had been before becoming Catholic.

But that just goes to show you that with out the TRUE teaching which comes from the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the intepreretation of both by the AUTHORATATIVE Magisterium which Jesus EMPOWERED–without that a person doesn’t know anything!

I am so thankful for Catholic Aswers and for all the Catholic apologists that I learned the Catholic faith from on the internet before being taught in RCIA by my parish priest.

All I’ve got to say to Catholics is TOOT your horn! Invite non Catholics to Mass!

Jesus will do the rest and Jesus will remember you when you meet Him at the particular judgement!

Thanks Lord Jesus for giving us sinners the Catholic Church!

 

[lna419]

Catholics shouldn’t argue with each other about exactly how wrong non catholics are–they’re wrong!

Some of them are wrong because they’re ignorant of the Catholic faith and the truth and some are wrong because they have been taught wrong and that comes by influence of the devil–the devil was the architect of the reformation!

In any event we should pray for them and try to bring them into the Catholic Church.

The first time I went to a Catholic Church I was astounded about how BIBLICAL the mass was! It was almot TOTAL BIBLE!

The people there were loving and loved Jesus!

I became a Catholic this Easter. It was the greatest thing that has ever happened in my entire life!

I wasn’t stupid before becoming a Catholic–I knew much of the bible–I was just IGNORANT about the Catholic faith–when I learned it I couldn’t get over how WRONG I had been before becoming Catholic.

But that just goes to show you that with out the TRUE teaching which comes from the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the intepreretation of both by the AUTHORATATIVE Magisterium which Jesus EMPOWERED–without that a person doesn’t know anything!

I am so thankful for Catholic Aswers and for all the Catholic apologists that I learned the Catholic faith from on the internet before being taught in RCIA by my parish priest.

All I’ve got to say to Catholics is TOOT your horn! Invite non Catholics to Mass!

Jesus will do the rest and Jesus will remember you when you meet Him at the particular judgement!

Thanks Lord Jesus for giving us sinners the Catholic Church!

Congrats!!! and welcome home!!!

 

[Ignatius]

I happened to get a look at the hand out for the Fundamentalist Bible study “Bible Study Fellowship Interrnational” for this week (BSF is studying Acts this year).

What to my wondering eyes should appear but a statement that many consider the pre-Pentecostal choice of Matthias a mistake .

Hmmm?
Act 1:24-25 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”

Well, according to The Word of God, it was The Lord who chose. So they think that The Lord made a mistake! Wouldn’t it be more likely that it is the Bible Study Fellowship Interrnational folks that made the mistake?

 

[JRRTFAN]

Hmmm?
Act 1:24-25
Well, according to The Word of God, it was The Lord who chose. So they think that The Lord made a mistake! Wouldn’t it be more likely that it is the Bible Study Fellowship Interrnational folks that made the mistake?

Ya think? The problem is there are lots of misguided soon to be ex-Catholic women in BSF (men are welcome but I’ve never known a Catholic man who would seek it out).

I have begged 2 local parish pastors to institute Catholic Scripture Study International in their parishes as an anti-dote, one did on a very limited basis and another wouldn’t “too much of a time commitment for the parishioners”.