Replies

A group of old men in dresses sitting in Rome has not been appointed to call pastors.

The congregation calls the pastors as was done in the early churches where a group of presbyters formed a type of committee which was in charge of local church affairs.

"Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.
And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves." -- 1 Thess. 5:11-13

The primary error of Rome is not understanding that the Apostolic age ended with the Apostles. There is nothing in Scripture to say the office of Apostle continued after Matthias took the place of Judas. It was the teaching of the Apostles which went out into the many churches of early Christendom. There were only 12 apostles of Christ. Any other "apostle" or disciple in Scripture is one who had been tasked with preaching the Gospel and establishing churches in the word of God. As an example, even though Barnabas is referenced as an "apostle" of the church, he later is led astray.

The office of the Apostles of Christ was very specific and involved only the original 12 men and Matthias who took over for Judas because these men alone fulfilled the requirements of Apostle...

"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us
beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us, one of these [must] become a witness with us of His resurrection." -- Acts 1:21-22

As is so often the case, Calvin has a Godly perspective on the choosing of Matthias...

So let us...consider what the Spirit speaks by the mouth of Peter. He begins by saying that the Scripture had to be fulfilled, lest anyone's mind should be troubled by the dreadful fall of Judas....
Peter's sermon is in two parts. Firstly he disposes of the difficulty which devout minds might have found in the fall of Judas; whence also he derives an exhortation that the rest may learn to fear God. Secondly, it remains for them to choose another in Judas' place. He establishes both by the witness of Scripture....
What he now brings in seems at first sight to be far-fetched. For if David spoke of transferring the bishopric to Judas, it does not at once follow that a successor should be elected by the disciples. Yet because they knew they had the charge laid upon them of ordering the Church, as soon as Peter has shown them that it was God's will that this should be done, he rightly infers that it is they who ought to execute the matter. For since God is pleased to use our agency for maintaining the government of the Church, as soon as we are assured of His will, we must not delay but diligently perform whatever our ministry demands. That was, beyond all controversy, the duty of the Church....
Only one was to be chosen in the place of Judas; they put forward two. It may be asked why they were not content with one. Was it because they were so like that they could not discern which was the more fit? This would surely not have been adequate reason for them to allow the matter to be decided by lot. And it seems also that Joseph was held in greater estimation. Or was it that there was a difference of opinion? This is highly unlikely, and is rendered untenable by the striking testimony that Luke gave a short time before to their unanimity. Finally it is not to be thought that they should mar the election of the apostle with such dissension. But the lot was introduced rather for this reason, that it might be known and witnessed to that Matthias was not to [sic] much chosen by the votes of men as appointed by the judgment of God. For there was this difference between the apostles and pastors, that whereas the pastors were chosen simply by the Church, the apostles must be called by God. Thus Paul in the preface to his epistle to the Galatians declares himself to be an apostle 'neither of men nor made by man.' Therefore as the distinction of this office was so great, it was fitting that in the election of Matthias, however well men had done their duty, the final decision should be left to God. Christ had appointed the others with His own voice; if Matthias had been adopted into their ranks by the choice of men alone, his authority would have been less than theirs. A middle course was adopted, whereby the disciples offered to God those whom they thought to be best and He should choose to Himself the one whom He knew to be most fit. Thus God, by the outcome of the lot declared that He approved the apostleship of Matthias. Now the disciples might seem to have acted rashly and irregularly in entrusting so important a matter to chance. For what certainty could they gain thereby? I reply that they had recourse to the lot only under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For although Luke does not say it was so, yet since he has no desire to accuse the disciples of rashness but rather makes it plain that the election was lawful and approved by God, I therefore affirm that they took this step under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; even as beyond doubt their whole course of action was dictated by the same Spirit. But why do they not pray that God should choose whom He would out of the whole multitude? Is not this to rob God of His freedom, when they limit Him to their choices and in a sense make Him subject to them? But anyone who will take time to consider the matter will clearly recognize from the sense of Luke that the disciples would have dared do nothing, which they did not know to be their duty, and to have been commanded them by God. As for those who raise difficulties, we shall let them go their own way." -- Calvin's commentary on Acts