Was Paul an Apostle

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by lakeside, May 10, 2015.

  1. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    In case some on this Forum think that I said St .Paul was lying, which he wasn't, I'd like to clarify St. Paul's role as an Apostle, So, of course, yes St. Paul was an Apostle, just not an apostle of the Twelve. Matthias was chosen by the 11 Apostles to replace Iscariot to complete the Twelve. Paul was chosen by Jesus NOT to be of the Twelve, but the Apostle to the Gentiles.

    The Twelve Apostles had their job, the Apostle Paul had another.
     
  2. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    Good post brother. You've evidently meditated upon this. But it's hard for me to imagine Paul's name not being on one of these foundations:

    14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
    24 And the nations shall walk amidst the light thereof: and the kings of the earth bring their glory into it. Rev 21
     
    #2 kyredneck, May 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  3. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1
    In that case, one of the apostles is no longer there and Paul promptly replaced him. I'd be hesitant to push a Revelation symbols hard. Almost always leads to error
     
  4. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    No your wrong, Matthias replaced Judas, making the number of Twelve Apostles.
    Paul was an apostle, but, his role was the Apostle to the Gentiles.
     
  5. Reformed

    Reformed
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    57
    Each Apostle had his own specific ministry, yet they were all Apostles. There is no differentiation between the original twelve and the latter two as far as the office of Apostle is concerned.
     
  6. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a question: Could it be that Peter and the others jumped the gun on choosing Matthias? The other Apostles were chosen by Jesus, not by the other apostles.

    Was Paul God's choice for the 12th man?
     
  7. PreachTony

    PreachTony
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would say look at Acts 1...
    Extra-biblical tradition, mostly Greek, proclaims the works of Matthias in Cappadocia and along the coasts of the Caspian. There are varying accounts of how Matthias met his end (stoned and beheaded in Jerusalem, stoned in Colchis, died of old age in Jerusalem, etc.). However, seeing as he seems to have genuinely done the work of the Lord, it would be tough to argue that he was not chosen of God (applying the advice of Gamaliel that if the work was not of God it would come to nothing).
     
  8. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just to make clear, I believe that Matthias was an Apostle but so was Paul and in the same way the others were.

    But to carry the discussion along, just praying about something or taking a vote necessarily make it God's will. In the same way, other believers were involved in ministry and were martyred for their faith but were not Apostles.

    Concerning Gamaliel's advice, we would also accept Smiling Joel's ministry because it hasn't come to nothing.
     
  9. vooks

    vooks
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    1

    Whether to Gentiles or not, Paul was an apostle. Why would he not be among the twelve of Revelation?
     
  10. PreachTony

    PreachTony
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no doubt that you did count Matthias as an apostle. I was just offering an answer to your question. Apologies if I came off as blunt or terse. It was not my intention.

    As for Smiling Joel...it's not over yet. He's still got time to see everything crash down around him. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  11. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    You didn't come off bad at all.

    As for Joel, even then it won't be over until the real Judge makes His decision.
     
  12. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    Paul did not neglect the Jews however. In the beginning, he always went to them first.
     
  13. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    I know little to nothing but Olsteen. I would say what is "the road to salvation" he presents? If it is Lordship salvation in Jesus by believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth.....is it worth fighting him?

    Like I said, I know very little of him. Hopefully someone can tell me how he presents God's redemptive plan.
     
  14. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the word apostle means "one who is sent" or something similar. The apostles were only those who were sent out by Christ. So, Matthias wouldn't have been an apostle unless he was sent out by Christ, but since he was elected, I would say his role was only that of an overseeing bishop. Paul, in this case, would have been the replacement and 12th apostle, since he was sent out by Christ.

    And if the above is all true, then it would make sense why we don't keep 12 apostles around in the hierarchy of the Church (unlike the Mormons), because more presiding bishops would have been stationed in more areas as the Church grew.
     
  15. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd disagree strongly about the Apostles being presiding bishops in any sense. Very early on in Acts 15, the head decision maker seemed not to be any Apostle, but James, the half brother of Jesus, who was never called an Apostle.
     
  16. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    If that is true then Peter, once again, makes a mistake:


    Acts 15:7


    King James Version (KJV)

    7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe



    It is best to see Paul as the appointed replacement and it is his name I believe we will see here...


    Revelation 21:14

    King James Version (KJV)

    14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.



    Keep in mind Matthias was chosen prior to the disciples being Baptized with the Holy Spirit, so I would not put too much in the unregenerate drawing straws and casting dice to choose someone to replace Judas. This could be compared to Peter wanting to build tabernacles on the Mount of Transfiguration.

    All of the Apostles would have ministered regardless of race or heritage, when the opportunity presented itself. Perhaps Paul's specific ministry to the Gentiles may have arose from a character flaw in Peter, perhaps racism. Prejudice and hypocrisy certainly reaered it's ugly head in Galatia.


    God bless.
     
  17. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not so fast,it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas "fall silent," allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly "falling silent" after Peter's teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is "sigesai" (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it's "esigese" (past tense aorist usage -- meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter's address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.

    So, why does James speak? We think there are three reasons:
    1. He's the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor.
    2.What he says, he ...like Paul and Barnabas ...ties into Peter's declaration: "Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God..." etc.
    3.And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church's "Jewish wing." Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes:


    "Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.'

    They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is MOST clear in verse 19, where it says:


    "It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES."

    Who was "troubling" the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas. :) Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision. So, who? ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the "Jewish party" that James is giving a "judgment" to.

    So again, the Council of Jerusalem was not an Ecumenical Council by Byzantine Orthodox definition. Rather, it was COMPLETELY based on the Petrine teaching office: the magisterium of the Church.

    And so, let's address several Orthodox propositions:
    1. Peter is not acting as a "First Among Equals," but "In Persona Christi Capitas." The assembly which, at this time, was pretty much the same thing as an assembly to administer the Sacrament of Confession, needed a presiding minister. In the early Church, when one received the Sacrament of Confession, a penitent would confess before the entire assembly. However, in this, the presiding bishop gave absolution on behalf of the church -- acting "In Persona Christi CAPITAS." And so, at Jerusalem, we see Peter as Head of the Church, speaking for the Church, making decisions for the Church, acting unilaterally on behalf of the Church. He does not share this authority with other bishops. He does not participate in the debate. Rather, it says: "After much debate had taken place, PETER GOT UP ..." His teaching ENDS the debate. He acts as father (Pope) to all.
    2.Contrary to the Orthodox understanding that Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem all share equal authority, basing this on episcopal authority derived from their sees and the supposed equality of their sees -- It is interesting to note that, in Acts 15, Peter does not act as a bishop of a see. Rather, he is merely a visitor. Yet, his Petrine office and teaching authority are in place -- even over the resident reigning bishop (James). Therefore, the idea that the Pope of Rome's teaching authority is merely that of a bishop is not sensible. If, as the Orthodox maintain, the Pope of Rome is the successor of Peter, it therefore follows that he succeeds to Peter's unique ministry and to a teaching office that is superior to the rest of the episcopate. Therefore, even if the Schism was a 4 to 1 split, as the Orthodox say, they would still be the ones in error. As St. John Chrysostom puts it: "And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan Hom). That's a Papacy, my friend. :)
    3.The incredibly revisionist Orthodox idea: "An Ecumenical Council can only be official if it's accepted by the laity..." SEEMS to be supported by Acts 15:22:
     
  18. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    You presume to interpret Scripture?

    ;)


    God bless.
     
  19. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    I only interpret the Holy Bible with the very same "ONE " Interpretation that was used when the correct Books were compiled into our New Testament.
     
  20. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Yeah, I only recognize the 66 Books myself. Glad we could come to an agreement on something. And I agree that there is only one interpretation for any given passage, though we do acknowledge that certain prophecy can have more than one application, such as Daniel speaking about Antiochus Epiphanes, perhaps Nero, and an ultimate fulfillment in the Beast of Revelation.

    ;)


    God bless.
     

Share This Page

Loading...