How could anyone read the following and not conclude that you were expositing on 1 Peter 1:1-2?
Your original post (reformatted to save space): Let’s look at First Peter 1:1-2. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.” So we have a some establishing facts: 1. Peter is an apostle and we should expect apostles in God’s True Church. 2. His audience isn’t everybody, but he addresses himself to the elect. The elect are both blessed by the grace of Christ (sprinkled with his blood) and, here’s the kicker - they’re obedient. Let’s continue. 1 Pet 1:3-9 reads:...End of this portion of your post.
Shouldn't we take the Bible as a whole and not simply as a series of disjointed, unconnected verses? The context matters and the entire Bible gives context.
Yes which is why many of your dogmatic positions will be very difficult to support. However, if you are drawing upon other verses to support your conclusion, it is customary to cite them.
I am not forcing that [apostles and order in God's True Church] on the text, that is its plain reading.
How do you deduce this from 1 Peter 1:1-2? From this verse, you can deduce that Peter was an apostle (he states so) and that he had communication with churches (which may or may not be associated with his apostolic position - he doesn't say). There is no harm in saying that a verse doesn't teach a particular point but there is no way that you can use this passage to support your conclusion unless you read it into the text. I have no problem with someone drawing an inference from Scripture provided there is reasonable support for it. But apostolic succession is just not anyway to be seen in this verse.
In the NT, apostles are replaced as needed.
You keep mentioning this like it is some Biblical truth that everyone must accept. How about some evidence? I assume you are referring to the replacement of Judas with Matthias in Acts 1. While the event, apparently to fulfill the Scripture Peter cites, was reported, where is the command (direct or implied) that this practice is to continue? Just reading the text, it would be logical to conclude from what the passage says that this office of Apostle is a special case office. Verse 22 tells us that the purpose of a big-a Apostle is to be a witness of the resurrected Christ. To fulfill this role, Justus and Matthias needed to meet specific requirements: followers of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to His ascension. In other words, they needed to be eyewitnesses to these events. Verses 22-23 seem to indicate that specific requirements were in place to assure a physical eyewitness. Obviously, physical eyewitnesses to these events are a limited pool which in all likelihood became non-existent with the death of John.
Let me ask again a question that you haven't answer, perhaps it is troubling: To whom in Pontus would you deliver the Epistle of Peter?
I didn't answer it because it didn't seem germane to the issue. However, you answered my off-topic question (which I didn't mean as a hostile question but to satisfy my curiosity), so I'll answer yours.
If I were a small-a apostle given responsibility to deliver Peter's letter, I imagine I'd deliver the letter to a leader in the Church at Pontus. Based on the NT evidence, in all likelihood, he would be called an elder.
Except I told that I wasn’t referring only to that text once you asked. Perhaps, jumping into the thread you lost context. Should a reader of the Bible parse it word by word or verse by verse ignoring the context, audience and other Biblical references? The answer is unequivocally no. That’s not eisegesis, but correct and proper exegesis.
Perhaps, you don’t like the answers, but Apostolic succession is a reasonable inference from the text of the New Testament. Many Christian churches adhere to this interpretation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Churches_claiming_apostolic_succession
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Are you arguing from a hatred of Mormonism and desire for the approval of your fellows? If these, who you accept and admit as Christians, believe in Apostles and Apostolic succession, why the beef with Mormons? You just don’t agree with the doctrine, right?
As regards your interpretation of Acts 1 in toto and for 1:22 specifically, you are simply wrong. Take another look at the entire chapter and do so in context. http://biblehub.com/ylt/acts/1.htm
NB 1:22 is describing Jesus’ ministry as beginning with John’s baptism to his [Jesus’] ascension, not that an apostle must be one who witnessed all those things first hand. If you know which Apostles witnessed the baptism of Jesus Christ please tell me and cite your verses (from the Bible only).
Here’s the Greek: http://biblehub.com/text/acts/1-22.htm
Note that witness/martyr is in the genitive in 1:22
http://biblesuite.com/greek/3144.htm
Therefore it is a figurative witness, not a literal [your word - physical] witness. They may have been physical/literal witnesses, but it is their Spiritual witness that really matters.
Do you honestly believe that the Apostles named in Acts were witnesses to the ends of the earth, everywhere, and that their mission was completed within their lifetimes?
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/1-8.htm
This verse from Rev. might help: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/1-5.htm
Take a look at John 1:35-51
http://biblehub.com/kjvs/john/1.htm
It would also benefit you to look at the references given for Matthew, Mark and Luke under the heading Jesus Calls His First Disciples as well.
As for delivering Peter’s letter look here: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-1.htm
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia are provinces and very big: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Roman_Empire_125_political_map.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Augusto_30aC_-_6dC_55%25CS_jpg.JPG
You’d have to deliver the letter to someone in each of the churches in that region. To whom would that be? How would you determine that? By what authority? What political boundary would that church have? How many people should get it and would you just give it to anyone who claimed to be a leader or a Christian?
The question of delivering Peter’s letter is fundamental to understanding the nature of the early Christian Church and its organization and leadership. That’s how we can come to an expectation of what His True Church will be like.
