Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biships and deacons
titus ch 1 and 1 timothy ch 3 | 9-20 -08 | ravenwolf

Posted on 09/20/2008 9:13:40 AM PDT by ravenwolf

Is there any place where any apostles were apointed except by the apostles themselves in acts 1- 22 ---------------------------------------------------- act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. ------------------------------------------------------ I see where Timothy and Titus were given authority to apoint bishops and deacons, from the older or more mature men in the church but I do not see any evidence that anyone can appoint apostles. ( my view ) -------------------------------------------------------

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Tts 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Tts 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

Tts 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

Tts 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Tts 1:10 ¶ For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

Tts 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Tts 1:12 One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Tts 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Tts 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. ------------------------------------------------------ The elders ( the aged or mature men ) were appointed to the office of Bishop and deacons ( my view ) -----------------------------------------------------

This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 1Ti 3:8 ¶ Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless. 1Ti 3:11 Even so [must their] wives [be] grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Question: When was anyone ever appointed to the position of an elder?

Question: Based on acts ch 1 verses 22 through 26 Why would the apostles be replaced by anyone not witnessing Christ,s resurrection?


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Other Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apostles; bishops; decons; elders

1 posted on 09/20/2008 9:13:40 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

Question: When was anyone ever appointed to the position of an elder?

Titus 1:5  ¶For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:


2 posted on 09/20/2008 9:26:43 AM PDT by jnwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

It has been my contention for a long time that Peter and the rest acted irrationally and impetuously in Acts 1. They had yet to receive the Holy Spirit, and so were acting on their own. Jesus told them to wait, but they didn’t. Jesus already had an apostle in mind with Paul, but Peter thought he HAD to do something.


3 posted on 09/20/2008 9:37:57 AM PDT by irishtenor (Check out my blog at http://boompa53.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

I disagree. Note what Paul writes in 1Cor 15:

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

Jesus Christ appeared to the “twelve” after his resurrection. Who was this twelfth? Judas was already dead, and Paul is not one of the twelve for in verse 8 of this same chapter he says:

8  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

If one believes that 1Cor 15:1-8 is inspired scripture, then it stands to reason that these “twelve” are also recognized by the Holy Spirit. Therefore it must be Mathias, the one that the 11 apostles appointed to take Judas’ place.

Something to consider.


4 posted on 09/20/2008 10:50:46 AM PDT by jnwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jnwest

I respectfully disagree. When refering to any of the apostles, it was as “one of the twelve” differentiating from the rest of the disciples. Judas was counted as one of those. When it said that Jesus say Cephas “one of the twelve” it doesn’t say he SAW the twelve, but saw Cephas, one of the twelve. Jesus was seen by about 500 people after his resurrection, not just the twelve.


5 posted on 09/20/2008 10:58:22 AM PDT by irishtenor (Check out my blog at http://boompa53.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

Consider this verse:
Acts 6:2  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.

Who is included in this group of twelve? Paul wasn’t saved yet, so he’s not the twelfth. Judas is dead, so the writer of Acts (Luke) also acknowledges that there is a “twelfth” apostle. I believe this is another testimony that the decision to choose a replacement for Judas was the right one.


6 posted on 09/20/2008 11:13:51 AM PDT by jnwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jnwest

I have never doubted that Mathias was “counted” as one of the new twelve. I just believe that Peter was in error in doing what he did. That’s all. God had Paul in mind if there were going to be any replacement.

That brings out another question. If Apostolic Succession was to be infered because of Peter’s actions... where are the OTHER eleven apostles now? Assuming, of course, that the Pope is the apostle of this era. Shouldn’t there be twelve at ALL TIMES? In other words, Apostolic Succession never happened after Acts 1, did it?


7 posted on 09/20/2008 11:21:19 AM PDT by irishtenor (Check out my blog at http://boompa53.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

Actually, we are probably on the same side. I don’t believe in “Apostolic Succession” as the RCC teaches. However, I do believe that it was the fulfillment of scripture that Matthias be chosen, and that Paul was an apostle “born out of due time”.

Acts 1:20  For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

I personally believe that there are no apostles today b/c there are no eyewitnesses of the resurrection. Also, they were used of God to give us the NT scriptures and that was the end of “divine inspiration”.


8 posted on 09/20/2008 1:00:21 PM PDT by jnwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jnwest

he was not ordaining anyone to be elders, he was ordaining elders to the office of deacons and bishops


9 posted on 09/20/2008 2:45:47 PM PDT by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

I will have to agree with irishtenor but thanks for the comment and I was just wondering about some of the churches having apostles that never witnesed the resurrection.


10 posted on 09/20/2008 2:57:10 PM PDT by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jnwest
Paul saw the /resurrected Lord but he was not present at the Resurrection. the word Apostle means sent one, So the 50 that went out could be called Apostles too. They were sent out by Christ.

Men today seek offices out of vain glory. Bishops were elders in the community. If you look at the history of the Church it is structured after the Roman military layer upon layer of authority. You can give credit or blame to Constantine for that one.

11 posted on 09/20/2008 4:40:01 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
If Apostolic Succession was to be infered because of Peter’s actions... where are the OTHER eleven apostles now? Assuming, of course, that the Pope is the apostle of this era. Shouldn’t there be twelve at ALL TIMES? In other words, Apostolic Succession never happened after Acts 1, did it?

I don't follow your point - why does Apostolic Succession have to be limited to 12 men? Further, Apostolic Succession means that one is the successor of the Apostles, not an Apostle themselves. The Apostles were Bishops, but Bishops are not Apostles.

Let me ask you a question in response. If there was no need of Apostolic Succession, why did Paul receive the laying on of hands - the same rite the Church uses to ordain men today? Why would Paul exhort Timothy to be patient in deciding to lay hands upon men, if it is merely a blessing?

12 posted on 09/20/2008 6:26:36 PM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
If Apostolic Succession was to be infered because of Peter's actions... where are the OTHER eleven apostles now? Assuming, of course, that the Pope is the apostle of this era. Shouldn't there be twelve at ALL TIMES?

"Apostolic succession" means that bishops get their office and authority from the Apostles through a series of valid ordinations, not that the bishops themselves are Apostles.

The last Apostle was St. John, who died around AD 92. There haven't been any since then, but there is a continuous succession of bishops in the church since that time.

(This is of course the Catholic/Orthodox/trad Anglican view. The Mormon view is entirely another thing.)

13 posted on 09/20/2008 7:34:16 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum

****I don’t follow your point - why does Apostolic Succession have to be limited to 12 men? ****

If Peter did the correct thing of choosing a successor for the one who was now departed, then 12 is the number and they have to alway have 12. When one goes you choose another to maintain the correct number. So... if Apostolic Succession was the way to go, we should have 12 today, not just the one (Pope).


14 posted on 09/20/2008 11:06:10 PM PDT by irishtenor (Check out my blog at http://boompa53.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
But they chose a new Apostle in the time before Pentecost. It seems that the 12, clearly symbolic of the 12 tribes, were necessary as a representation that all Israel provided the foundation for the Church, while at Pentecost the Church moved beyond the Jews into the whole World. Thus, the number 12 no longer held its special significance. Following this, it were 5 Sees of 5 Apostles (St. Peter founded 2) which became leadership positions. They were:

But all this is moot. Why is having 12 necessary?

15 posted on 09/21/2008 7:12:02 AM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

Just what Christ loves, Christians arguing about Scripture.


16 posted on 09/21/2008 2:00:44 PM PDT by veritas2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

The point is that once Matthias is an apostle, he is fully an apostle. So, we know that the apostles can appoint replacement apostles. And since a replacement apostle is fully apostles, he could then do anything an original apostle could do... including taking part in appointing a replacement apostle.


17 posted on 09/22/2008 2:32:59 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

>> Judas was counted as one of those. <<

He was until he died. After that, the bible still refers to the twelve, but the twelve now evidently includes Matthias, and not Judas:

“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.” (Acts 6:2)


18 posted on 09/22/2008 2:35:39 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dangus

The point is that once Matthias is an apostle, he is fully an apostle.


Yes, but Matthias wittnesed the resurection, the appostles
had to choose some one who had wittnesed the resurection.

act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.


19 posted on 11/13/2008 9:22:15 AM PST by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

It has been my contention for a long time that Peter and the rest acted irrationally


I disagree
The apostles did wait in jerusalem just like they were told to do, and what they were waiting for was pentecost, they had to choose some one to replace judas before pentecost so there would be 12 wittnesses, therefore they had to choose some one who had been a wittness to the resurection.Paul by his own words were the least of the apostles.

We have more from paul than any of the other apostles, because they were not destroyed, however the other apostles if they were in other places would have wrote to jeruslem i imagine and those letters would have a lot more chance of being destroyed.

I think peter knew just what he was doing when he said they must appoint another one to take judas,s place.

Just my thoughts.


20 posted on 11/13/2008 10:06:23 AM PST by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: veritas2002

Just what Christ loves, Christians arguing about Scripture.


We are not arguing, we are just learning, Jesus said ( know the truth and the truth shall set you free ) How are you going to know the truth if every one has a different understanding of the scriptures? we are not talking about salvation here we are talking about being free,

In my way of looking at it, it would simply mean free from relgious traditions or maybe just free from false doctrine,

Do you realize that just a few hunderd years ago very few people even had a Bible to read, and that they had to take some one else,s word for it ? but even today so many people will not read the Bible, they would rather take what some one else says even though it might be false, would you trust your freedom, much less your salvation to just anybody? Just because they happen to have a degree in something or other.


21 posted on 11/13/2008 10:26:19 AM PST by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

If this were the case, that Apostolic succession was implied and proper, where are the OTHER 11 apostles (assuming that the Pope is the successor to Peter). Where is the successor to John, Thomas, Mathias, etc?

Peter’s actions occurred before the Holy Spirit came upon him and the rest. They were acting without the knowledge and wisdom of God in them. They were without approval.

God had a successor to Judas, in the form of Paul.


22 posted on 11/13/2008 10:59:36 AM PST by irishtenor (Check out my blog at http://boompa53.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

Probably on a different thought pattern, but I do not assume
that the pope has any thing to do with the apostal peter.

I also think that peter and the other apostals knew a little more about what they were doing than we do so I will assume they chose the apostal to replace Judas as the Bible says and there were 12 apostals before paul,

Good to here views from others.


23 posted on 03/19/2009 6:09:55 AM PDT by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jnwest

I agree,
paul did not wittness Christs resurection.

1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

According to verse 21 there is no way Paul could have replaced one of the 12.


24 posted on 03/19/2009 6:54:33 AM PDT by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson