Where did the Church first go wrong?

[DrBubbaLove]

You're missing the point. I'm not being anti-Catholic although I do see them as the Laodicean Church. I'm repeating my self i know but somehow it seems necessary. It's the cast of lots that is wrong.

There was nothing charitable or relevant to the thread discussion by adding the various smears to the Church. Drawing of lots as I said comes from a Jewish tradition, and it was and would be now a way to make a group decision between two EQUALLY valid choices without getting emotional or hurt feelings into mix. That one cannot acknowledge at least that much or that God could have a hand even in that outcome simply because of an obvious hatred toward anything Catholic would not be an example of pro-Catholic either, and the views expressed were not neutral either. As it was both of the valid choices were a blessing to the Church, so am still unclear how this was the so called first wrong step.

What exactly was wrong with the election of Matthias?

Is it that they picked a replacement at all? Is it that they picked the wrong one? Is it that God cannot influence a random event if He cared to? Is it wrong because they prayed for His guidance in the outcome of a random event to help them decide between two equally qualified men because they could not or did not want to? Is it wrong that obviously unable to come to consensus between the two men and so elect one outright that they instead relied on the outcome of a random event? Is it that they should have waited for Saint Paul (which was an original claim since retracted apparently)?

Simply stating gee they drew lots, they were "gambling" with an outcome is not working for me along side your repeated anti-Catholic rhetoric - and it is not unsimilar to the joke about Protestants fuming over Catholics daring to catch a part bus to the Casino while hiding their faces from their buds all driving individually to the same place.

Say one has two equally valid, righteous choices and unable to pick, decide to pray and ask God to help one choose by just allowing one to either not act at all in deciding the outcome IOW by just letting whatever will happen happen without one acting to influence or stop one alternative, or randomly act in some a manner that naturally results in one choice without favoring either. Am not seeing the difference there morally with what the Apostles are depicted doing and am willing to bet many here objecting if they have lived long enough have done exactly that when they truly did not know what to do. Let it ride is essentially the same idea - so whether one helped in creating the outcome of a random of event (draw straws) or just let it happen, if the alternative are truly equal and both righteous am at a loss what the Christian is claiming to have done wrong either way.

It is only if we assume there was one choice clearly better than the other that we could say the Apostles allowed something to be random that should not have been. But that is not a claim made yet. And even there, one is also doubting God could work through a contingency to the outcome that actually said to occur shortly after He told them He would be with them always and also whatever they decide to bind and loose will stand.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Acts 1:24-26
Then they prayed and said, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.’ And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.​

There is nothing to suggest that the lot falling on Matthias was not the mind of Christ speaking,

Really! Where does it say that? Because it doesn't say it anywhere. You're adding to scripture.

and indeed to the contrary the witness of Acts is that this was prayerful and appropriate.

But there was no answer to this prayer just silence, (probably like the silence you get when you pray).

Remember of course at this time Saul was not what one might perceive as available for selection.

He wasn't exactly available when he was on his way to Damascus but that didn't stop Jesus throwing him off his horse.

Whilst the witness of Scripture is silent on Matthias, there is some evidence that he was influential in the establishment of the Church in Capadocia which is a place that many who study Church History will be familiar with. We certainly do not have the evidence to support the suggestion that Matthias come to nothing.

Yes, it is possible that this was an account of Matthias but hardly note worthy in the light of what Paul did.

Paul, however, clearly achieved a great deal, and because to the extent of his travels, and the regions in which he travelled, and because he had enough time under arrest to write extensively, and his letters were preserved and cherished, means that we are very familiar with his thinking, and his great work.

Glad you noticed that Jesus chose wisely.

His own understanding is that he was sent (apostolos) to the Gentiles,

Actually he didn't want to leave the disciples but was forced and eventually Barnabas helped him go to Tarsus and eventually he did go to the gentiles because there was little choice in the matter and besides that's where Jesus wanted him to go anyway.

and I don't think he saw himself in any way second fiddle to the Galilean Fishermen and others who made up the 12,

Yes he did:

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

I am not totally convinced that he numbered himself among them.

And again yes he did:

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

The criteria in Acts was not likely to include Paul.

Acts 1:21-22
So one of the men who have accompanied us throughout the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.’​

Yes a man made criteria! Not God's criteria. God looks at the heart.

I don't believe that the case has been made that the Church got in wrong in selecting Matthias.

Because you don't know your Bible well enough.​

I have no need to make Paul one of the twelve

I'm not surprised after that lot of garbage but you obviously think you know better than Jesus, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

in order to esteem and value his contribution to the ongoing life of the Church. He has much more to offer us.

I actually agree with that. Mmmmm, you're not so bad after all.[/QUOTE]

 

[Wolf_Says]

Really! Where does it say that? Because it doesn't say it anywhere. You're adding to scripture.

It does say so right there in Acts 1:21-26 " So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab′bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi′as. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi′as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles."

He is not adding to scripture at all.

You keep on yelling at everybody they "clearly we don't know the Bible well enough." but you then say that Phillip added words to scripture? It's right there in black and white.

I suggest you stop with your personal attacks at people. It sheds a bad light on you.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Where have I not addressed the issue?

OP states that the Church was wrong in electing Matthias as the replacement for Judas, and uses Acts 1:4 to back up that claim.

I point out that the OP failed to quote the entier verse and took it out of context, and that nowhere does it state that electing Matthias was wrong, or that lots are "not for the Church."

How have I not addressed the issue then??

For one in not replying to my numerous posts quoted to you. I'm sure many issues were ignored.

 

[Wolf_Says]

For one in not replying to my numerous posts quoted to you. I'm sure many issues were ignored.

I haven't replied to you, because tbh I have been too busy replying to Guide. As he is the OP of the thread, and the single issue that I personally care about here in this thread.

What issues have I ignored from you? If you really want me to address them then.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I haven't replied to you, because tbh I have been too busy replying to Guide. As he is the OP of the thread, and the single issue that I personally care about here in this thread.

What issues have I ignored from you? If you really want me to address them then.

It'll all come out in the wash np

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Genesis
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty (innocent), darkness (Satan) was over the surface of the deep (waiting), and the Spirit of God (The Holy Spirit) was hovering over the waters (also waiting).

Like I said and still "waiting" on an answer for.
Placed in a similar predicament, it appears that as it was not denied it has not been done there is a willingness to let a contingency play out, and grant it Spirit guided as long as it is to one's benefit. So the contingency(drawing lots) is not really the issue here. It is simply that one waited rather than set the contingency in motion oneself like the Apostles did. How convenient a claim to be so piously different than the Apostles in allowing the Spirit could help one with a contingent event, but not the Apostles. Exactly how is this basis for pious superiority so different from the Apostles praying and then just letting a contingency play out?

Reminds me of the story of the pious fellow waiting on the roof top during a flood praying for God to save him and preferring to "wait" for that to occur rather than accept help that people offered (contingent events).

 

[Wolf_Says]

It'll all come out in the wash np

I'm sorry....what? Can you please explain what you mean? I am not entirely sure what you are saying here.

 

[Philip_B]

Really! Where does it say that? Because it doesn't say it anywhere. You're adding to scripture.

But there was no answer to this prayer just silence, (probably like the silence you get when you pray).

He wasn't exactly available when he was on his way to Damascus but that didn't stop Jesus throwing him off his horse.

Yes, it is possible that this was an account of Matthias but hardly note worthy in the light of what Paul did.

Glad you noticed that Jesus chose wisely.

Actually he didn't want to leave the disciples but was forced and eventually Barnabas helped him go to Tarsus and eventually he did go to the gentiles because there was little choice in the matter and besides that's where Jesus wanted him to go anyway.

Yes he did:

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

And again yes he did:

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

Yes a man made criteria! Not God's criteria. God looks at the heart.

Because you don't know your Bible well enough.​

I'm not surprised after that lot of garbage but you obviously think you know better than Jesus, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.



I actually agree with that. Mmmmm, you're not so bad after all.

Much of this post might be seen as flaming and goading, and in accordance with CF etiquette, I shall not respond, save to assure you on this occasion silence does not mean assent.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Really loosely translated...

Not many consider where it first began to go wrong for the church:

Acts 1:4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

Our Savior's comand was to not leave Jerusalem until they received the gift He promised them-the gift of the Spirit.

Jesus gave the Apostle this one command just before His Ascension but in that 10 days the apostles chose by votes and lot, and also apart from Gods’ instructions, to replace Judas with Matthias:

Acts 2:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

I think you mean Acts 1:26...The Holy Spirit guided them to choose Matthias, the result of the lots cast was the Holy Spirit's decision.

This seemly innocuous act carried over and into the Christian faith the Jewish priesthood practice of drawing lots and started an unofficial man made tradition of voting and drawing lots to replace the disciples after they had died, including Peter and which has continued until this day with each new selection of Pope. However, this was never God’s intention as it is God alone who selects His chosen people as proven by the fact that Jesus chose Paul shortly afterwards to be the replacement apostle:

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

The casting of lots is OT and is not for the Church because it is a man made system that is open to corruption and is the problem at the centre of the Catholic Church. If they had of waited on God as they were instructed by Jesus to do, then after the day of Pentecost Paul would have been added to their number. This failure to wait on God and not act in ones own power is probably the most basic and commonly made errors all Christians make.

It's very interesting to see that someone doesn't trust that what Jesus said, he did...

 

[Guide To The Bible]

That is the timeline of Acts, you can look it up yourself.

Well your way out, just as you are with thinking Peter was caring out God work by casting lots.

You're the one who continues to make the claim that casting lots was not for the Church. Therefor, you are the one responsible for providing the evidence that this is in the Bible.

And you the one who keep bring it up, Therefore you need to provide proof Jesus taught that casting lots was to be done. (May be you think he taught the Roman soldiers at the foot of the cross? "Hey boy's you're doing it all wrong, let me down for a minute and I'll show you how it's done).

So far you have not.

Neither have you because its's a straw-man argument you've made.

There doesn't need to be any form of manifestation, why does there need to be? I am not discrediting Paul, not in the slightest.

Really, could have fooled me. However, you are trying to make out that Matthias ranks equal with Paul in how they were chosen which is as bizarre as your assertion that they were also equal in there 'Apostleship'.

Because Peter did not like the Gentiles,

What!!!! Peter converted the first gentile believer: Cornelius and all his family too, Perhaps you think that Peter didn't really like Cornelius, maybe you think Peter secretly talked behind his back and said nasty things about him? Where do you get this stuff from?

and Paul was showing him that this was an error.

That was when Paul rebuked Peter, yes; For making another mistake. Like with the lot casting.

That has nothing to do with electing Matthias as an apostle.

I was pointing out the rebuke, not the error peter made about not accepting gentiles. You're misconstruing what I said, (again).

 

[Meowzltov]

Okay you can have you papal electoral system but the casting of lots for Matthias was still a mistake that lead to all the denominational wars since then.

No, Sola Scriptura and the idea that "the Holy Spirit will lead every individual to a correct understanding of Scripture" is what led to denominational wars.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Wrong, Paul rebuked Peter himself, Jesus didn't need to do it as Jesus had already selected the right man for the job in the first place. God does not make mistakes:

Galatians 2:11
But when Kaypha came to Antiakia, I rebuked him to his face because they were tripped up by him;

Actually your claim would infer He did indeed make mistakes in picking men you desire out of spite against the Church to paint as so fickle that they would according to you IMMEDIATELY go astray and start messing things up. So claiming what they did in Acts 1 was wrong does imply that God, when He came here himself to initiate that Church and apparently failed so miserably at picking the right people, made a mistake about His claim to be able to help them in their efforts to feed His sheep. So by inference you would also be claiming it took most of two millennium for men following His actions then to correct the mistakes He made then.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Well your way out, just as you are with think Peter was caring out God work by casting lots.

And you the one who keep bring it up, Therefore you need to provide proof Jesus taught that casting lots was to be done. (May be you think he taught the Roman soldiers at the foot of the cross? "Hey boy's you're doing it all wrong, let me down for a minute and I'll show you how it's done).

Neither have you because its's a straw-man argument you've made.

Really, could have fooled me. However, you are trying to make out that Matthias ranks equal with Paul in how they were chosen which is as bizarre as your assertion that they were also equal in there 'Apostleship'.

What!!!! Peter converted the first gentile believer: Cornelius and all his family too, Perhaps you think that Peter did really like Cornelius, maybe you think Peter secretly talked behind his back and said nasty things about him? Where do you get this stuff from?

That was when Paul rebuked Peter, yes; For making another mistake. Like with the lot casting.

I was pointing out the rebuke, not the error peter made about not accepting gentiles. You're misconstruing what I said, (again).

[/QUOTE]

I am not, you said that Paul rebuked Peter, which he did, but not for the reason you think.

You are sorely confused, and I will say that I have not made a single stawman in this "debate".

You continue to pull out single verses out of context to try and prove how "lots were not for the Church." and I point out the full verses don't say what you think they say.

I am not way "out" as you seem to claim.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

You sound angry.

I like setting the misguide straight, I get zealous.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Hillarious, now I know that you are full of it. I highly HIGHLY doubt that you know more than St Peter, or any of the Apostles. I don't know more than them, and I doubt there is a single person on these forums that knows more than them.

You've not seen nothing yet.

 

[Philip_B]

zealous

did you perhaps mean belligerent?

 

[Thursday]

Yes, and so are the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Ethiopian, Old Catholic, some Lutheran and certain other denominations or communions as well.

Thanks for asking.

I didn't ask for more falsehoods, but I got them. You aren't interested in reality, clearly.

Why do you keep coming on here and bashing the Catholic Church with lies?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Where have I not addressed the issue?

OP states that the Church was wrong in electing Matthias as the replacement for Judas, and uses Acts 1:4 to back up that claim.

I point out that the OP failed to quote the entier verse and took it out of context, and that nowhere does it state that electing Matthias was wrong, or that lots are "not for the Church."

How have I not addressed the issue then??

As i said there are other's who are seeing it from the same pov as myself. It's not a one sided debate as you would like to think.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well your way out, just as you are with thinking Peter was caring out God work by casting lots.

And you the one who keep bring it up, Therefore you need to provide proof Jesus taught that casting lots was to be done. (May be you think he taught the Roman soldiers at the foot of the cross? "Hey boy's you're doing it all wrong, let me down for a minute and I'll show you how it's done).

Neither have you because its's a straw-man argument you've made.

Really, could have fooled me. However, you are trying to make out that Matthias ranks equal with Paul in how they were chosen which is as bizarre as your assertion that they were also equal in there 'Apostleship'.

What!!!! Peter converted the first gentile believer: Cornelius and all his family too, Perhaps you think that Peter didn't really like Cornelius, maybe you think Peter secretly talked behind his back and said nasty things about him? Where do you get this stuff from?

That was when Paul rebuked Peter, yes; For making another mistake. Like with the lot casting.

I was pointing out the rebuke, not the error peter made about not accepting gentiles. You're misconstruing what I said, (again).

Where was Saint Peter rebuked for drawing lots?

And why should you be allowed to pray and then let whatever happen will of a contingency but they cannot?

Where does anyone get the authority to say God made so grave an error while here in selecting men they want to paint as being so fickle in morals and faith to build His Church and because of that alleged mistake of God it would take 1500 years for presumably "better" men to come along to "fix" it?