Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that is how they should do it.
If Peter had the authority he should have simply said, "I appoint so and so to replace Judas." That he didn't proves Peter recognized he did not have that authority you claim he did.
That is what a Gentile ruler would do, is it not ? Try to think about it as a Jew, and not just as a Jew, but a Jew led by the Spirit of God who was chief of all the apostles by being the humble servant of all the apostles.
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. 28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. 29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
There was also a criteria placed on Judas' replacement. The new man had to "have accompanied ua all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us..." Nobody, after about 120 AD, would have met that criteria. That this requirement, ironically, as laid down by Peter, can no longer be fulfilled, shows the concept of apostolic succession is not found in the NT.
Except that Peter, who bound the first rule of apostolic succession, would have the authority to appoint his successor with different criteria. That his appointment of a successor is not recorded in Scripture as an example does not require that all the decisions he ever made while leading the holy catholic apostolic church also be recorded in Scripture. The pattern was established. Bishops were appointed and successors were named from the First Century until now.
Chief of the Apostles....again...no biblical support for such a title. That same argument could be made for Paul or James and maybe even John.
One thing I will say about the RCC....they love giving out titles where none exists.
Except that Peter, who bound the first rule of apostolic succession, would have the authority to appoint his successor with different criteria.
So Peter just starts making stuff up??
Well, that would be in line with the RCC.
However, I would be very surprised that Peter would start making stuff up. He knew Who he was serving and what his responsibilities were....to preach the Word!
You guys really amaze me with what you come up with.
It's this way when it fits your outlook, but not this way when it doesn't.
>> “Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that is how they should do it.” <<
.
Nonsense!
They decided, without any input from the Holy Spirit, to appoint an apostle, which they did, and then God ignored their appointment and appointed Paul instead, and Mathias was never heard of again.
Only Yeshua could appoint an apostle.
.
Oh?
And you KNOW this; how?