Biships and deacons

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

[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?

[jnwest]

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:

[irishtenor]

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.

[jnwest]

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.

[irishtenor]

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.

[jnwest]

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.

[irishtenor]

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?

[jnwest]

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”.

[ravenwolf]

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

[ravenwolf]

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.

[guitarplayer1953]

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.

[thefrankbaum]

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?

[Campion]

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.)

[irishtenor]

****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).

[thefrankbaum]

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:

• See of Sts. Peter and Paul - Rome
• See of St. Andrew - Constantinople
• See of St. Mark - Alexandria
• See of St. Peter - Antioch
• See of St. James - Jerusalem

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

[veritas2002]

Just what Christ loves, Christians arguing about Scripture.

[dangus]

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.

[dangus]

>> 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)

[ravenwolf]

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.

[ravenwolf]

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.