How do preachers or teachers explain this?

[OMC]

EPHESIANS 4:11
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

The Lord clearly declared that He Himself would give apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors, and teachers. Yet, it is people who appoint or elect them, rather than God.

According to human understanding, the Lord can no longer make these appointments because He is no longer physically present on earth. Therefore, people take it upon themselves to choose and appoint those who will hold these offices. Consequently, such appointments are not necessarily in accordance with the truth or with the will of God.

Why do people fail to understand what the apostles actually did, even though they can clearly read the account? Because Judas had fallen, they chose someone to take his place. There is no doubt that the apostles belonged to God. They even prayed to the Lord, asking Him to guide them in choosing the person who would replace Judas. Yet they ultimately chose Matthias as Judas’s replacement.

However, if the Lord alone is the One who appoints, and no human being has the authority to appoint, then even though these men were apostles, the one they appointed to replace Judas was rejected by the Lord.
ACTS 1:20-26
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.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
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.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
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.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

How much more, then, would this apply to those who make such appointments today, when they are not even confirmed apostles of the Lord like the eleven apostles were? Surely, the Lord would not acknowledge or accept such appointments.

Therefore, just as there were false prophets during the time of the New Testament, there are likewise pseudo-Christians today—people who may profess to follow Christ but whose teachings and practices are not truly in accordance with the truth.

Your entire argument is built on a system that forces Acts 1 to say something it never says.
You begin with a true premise — Christ alone gives apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers — but then you build a conclusion Scripture does not support: that any human participation in recognizing those gifts invalidates them.
That is not exegesis; that is suspicion dressed up as doctrine.
The apostles did not “take it upon themselves” to appoint Matthias; they prayed, they submitted their choice to the Lord, they cast lots precisely because they refused to trust their own judgment, and the text says plainly that Matthias “was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
Luke does not hint that Christ rejected him. You are importing a system that treats Acts 1 as a mistake simply because it does not fit your framework.
And when you say, “If the Lord alone appoints, then Matthias was rejected,” I must gently chastise that attitude because it contradicts the very passage you quoted.
The apostles prayed, “Lord, show us whom You have chosen,” and the lot fell on Matthias. You cannot call that rejection without accusing Scripture of error.
Yes, false prophets existed then, and pseudo‑Christians exist now — but your conclusion that all human recognition of ministry is invalid is not the teaching of Ephesians 4; it is the teaching of a system that mistrusts the church Christ Himself established.
The Lord appoints; the church recognizes. That is the pattern in Acts, not the suspicion you’ve inherited.

 

[Godsgood]

I understand why you quote Ecclesiastes 1:9, Matthew 24:35, and Malachi 3:6, but those verses do not overturn what I said.
When I read Ecclesiastes 1:9, I see Solomon describing the repetition of human patterns, not the repetition of God’s specific commands to individuals; otherwise every unique command in Scripture would have to be repeated forever, which is impossible.
Matthew 24:35 tells me Jesus’ words never expire, not that every event or every command continues unchanged in every era.
And Malachi 3:6 affirms God’s unchanging nature, not uniformity of commands across all people and all covenants. So when you uses those verses to argue that God must give the same command to everyone, you are applying a hyper‑literal, universalizing hermeneutic—a system that treats every command as timeless and identical for all people, even when Scripture itself shows God giving different instructions to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and Paul.
My position remains simple: God’s character never changes, but His commands vary according to calling, covenant, and purpose, exactly as Scripture demonstrates.

The Lord said in John 3:12 that He speaks of earthly things so that we may understand heavenly things.

Consider this earthly example:
God alone is the one and only Teacher.
All of us are His students, men and women, young and old.
No one is exempt from being a student before God.
Throughout our lives, we are given tests and trials, and we are expected to learn from them and remain faithful to His teachings.

Generations may come and go, and the circumstances of life may change, but the questions in the examination remain the same.
The truth does not change simply because time has passed.
God remains the Teacher, and His word remains the standard by which we are examined.

 

[OMC]

The Lord said in John 3:12 that He speaks of earthly things so that we may understand heavenly things.

Consider this earthly example:
God alone is the one and only Teacher.
All of us are His students, men and women, young and old.
No one is exempt from being a student before God.
Throughout our lives, we are given tests and trials, and we are expected to learn from them and remain faithful to His teachings.

Generations may come and go, and the circumstances of life may change, but the questions in the examination remain the same.
The truth does not change simply because time has passed.
God remains the Teacher, and His word remains the standard by which we are examined.

Your analogy is sincere yet built on a system that quietly rewrites the very issue under discussion.
You say God is the Teacher, we are the students, the tests remain the same, and the truth does not change — and all of that is right.
But then you use that analogy to smuggle in a conclusion Scripture does not teach: that because God’s truth never changes, His commands must always be identical for every person in every era.
That is the very hyper‑universalizing hermeneutic I warned about. You are treating God’s unchanging nature as though it requires unchanging instructions, when Scripture itself shows the opposite.
God told Noah to build an ark; He did not tell Abraham to build one.
God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac; He did not tell Moses to do the same.
God told Jonah to go to Nineveh; He did not tell Ezekiel to go.
God told Paul to enter Macedonia; He did not tell Peter to enter Macedonia.
The Teacher is the same, the truth is the same, the standard of righteousness is the same — but the assignments are not.
Your analogy collapses the difference between unchanging truth and varying commands, and I must gently chastise that attitude because it forces Scripture into a system rather than letting Scripture define the system.
The Teacher does not give every student the same task; He gives each the task suited to their calling, covenant, and purpose.
That is not my opinion — that is the pattern of the entire biblical record.

 

[Godsgood]

Your entire argument is built on a system that forces Acts 1 to say something it never says.
You begin with a true premise — Christ alone gives apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers — but then you build a conclusion Scripture does not support: that any human participation in recognizing those gifts invalidates them.
That is not exegesis; that is suspicion dressed up as doctrine.
The apostles did not “take it upon themselves” to appoint Matthias; they prayed, they submitted their choice to the Lord, they cast lots precisely because they refused to trust their own judgment, and the text says plainly that Matthias “was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
Luke does not hint that Christ rejected him. You are importing a system that treats Acts 1 as a mistake simply because it does not fit your framework.
And when you say, “If the Lord alone appoints, then Matthias was rejected,” I must gently chastise that attitude because it contradicts the very passage you quoted.
The apostles prayed, “Lord, show us whom You have chosen,” and the lot fell on Matthias. You cannot call that rejection without accusing Scripture of error.
Yes, false prophets existed then, and pseudo‑Christians exist now — but your conclusion that all human recognition of ministry is invalid is not the teaching of Ephesians 4; it is the teaching of a system that mistrusts the church Christ Himself established.
The Lord appoints; the church recognizes. That is the pattern in Acts, not the suspicion you’ve inherited.

As I understand what you said, the Lord did not reject Matthias as Judas’s replacement. Am I understanding you correctly?

If I am correct, what evidence or biblical testimony can you provide that the Lord accepted Matthias as Judas’s replacement?

 

[Godsgood]

Your analogy is sincere yet built on a system that quietly rewrites the very issue under discussion.
You say God is the Teacher, we are the students, the tests remain the same, and the truth does not change — and all of that is right.
But then you use that analogy to smuggle in a conclusion Scripture does not teach: that because God’s truth never changes, His commands must always be identical for every person in every era.
That is the very hyper‑universalizing hermeneutic I warned about. You are treating God’s unchanging nature as though it requires unchanging instructions, when Scripture itself shows the opposite.
God told Noah to build an ark; He did not tell Abraham to build one.
God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac; He did not tell Moses to do the same.
God told Jonah to go to Nineveh; He did not tell Ezekiel to go.
God told Paul to enter Macedonia; He did not tell Peter to enter Macedonia.
The Teacher is the same, the truth is the same, the standard of righteousness is the same — but the assignments are not.
Your analogy collapses the difference between unchanging truth and varying commands, and I must gently chastise that attitude because it forces Scripture into a system rather than letting Scripture define the system.
The Teacher does not give every student the same task; He gives each the task suited to their calling, covenant, and purpose.
That is not my opinion — that is the pattern of the entire biblical record.

In the clear and literal understanding of people, the Word of God is understood in a physical and literal sense. However, the Lord said that His words are spiritual, as stated in John 6:63.

Therefore, when people understand the Word of God only according to its literal and physical meaning, they may conclude that the commandments given by God are not always the same. But when His words are understood according to their spiritual meaning, the message of God remains consistent and the same.

For a person to see and understand this spiritual truth, he must first fulfill the warning given by the Lord God. Only then can he come to recognize the spiritual meaning contained in God's words.
PROVERBS 3:5
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

The only person who can truly fulfill this commandment is one who has humility. A humility that God sees in his heart.

 

[OMC]

As I understand what you said, the Lord did not reject Matthias as Judas’s replacement. Am I understanding you correctly?

If I am correct, what evidence or biblical testimony can you provide that the Lord accepted Matthias as Judas’s replacement?

Yes—you understood me correctly. I said the Lord did not reject Matthias. And the evidence is not hidden, nor indirect, nor speculative. It is right in the passage itself, and it is exactly what your system is forcing you to overlook.
The apostles prayed, “Thou, Lord… show whether of these two Thou hast chosen,” and then they cast lots—a method used only when the decision was placed entirely in God’s hands.
Luke then writes, without hesitation, “the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
If the Lord had rejected Matthias, Luke would not have written that sentence.
He would have written, “the lot fell, but the Lord did not accept him,” or “the apostles erred,” or “the Spirit later corrected them.”
But the Spirit-inspired historian simply records Matthias as an apostle.
That is the biblical testimony.
The only reason anyone doubts Matthias is because a system tells them the appointment must be wrong, not because the text says so. Scripture gives no correction, no rebuke, no replacement, no hint of divine disapproval.
The only “evidence” against Matthias comes from human grids that cannot tolerate God working through human means.
So I say this kindly: the evidence that the Lord accepted Matthias is the very thing your system is trying to explain away—the plain words, “he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

 

[Godsgood]

Your analogy is sincere yet built on a system that quietly rewrites the very issue under discussion.
You say God is the Teacher, we are the students, the tests remain the same, and the truth does not change — and all of that is right.
But then you use that analogy to smuggle in a conclusion Scripture does not teach: that because God’s truth never changes, His commands must always be identical for every person in every era.
That is the very hyper‑universalizing hermeneutic I warned about. You are treating God’s unchanging nature as though it requires unchanging instructions, when Scripture itself shows the opposite.
God told Noah to build an ark; He did not tell Abraham to build one.
God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac; He did not tell Moses to do the same.
God told Jonah to go to Nineveh; He did not tell Ezekiel to go.
God told Paul to enter Macedonia; He did not tell Peter to enter Macedonia.
The Teacher is the same, the truth is the same, the standard of righteousness is the same — but the assignments are not.
Your analogy collapses the difference between unchanging truth and varying commands, and I must gently chastise that attitude because it forces Scripture into a system rather than letting Scripture define the system.
The Teacher does not give every student the same task; He gives each the task suited to their calling, covenant, and purpose.
That is not my opinion — that is the pattern of the entire biblical record.

Based on your own understanding of the Word of God, it would not be surprising if you concluded that the Lord commanded Solomon alone to build Him a house or a dwelling place.
However, we who have come to know the one true God understand that this command was not given to Solomon alone, but to all those whom God has chosen. We also believe that this command has been given to us.

Therefore, we are carrying out this command by building a house for Him, not merely because of human interpretation, but because we understand it as a command given by God to those whom He has chosen.

 

[Godsgood]

Yes—you understood me correctly. I said the Lord did not reject Matthias. And the evidence is not hidden, nor indirect, nor speculative. It is right in the passage itself, and it is exactly what your system is forcing you to overlook.
The apostles prayed, “Thou, Lord… show whether of these two Thou hast chosen,” and then they cast lots—a method used only when the decision was placed entirely in God’s hands.
Luke then writes, without hesitation, “the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
If the Lord had rejected Matthias, Luke would not have written that sentence.
He would have written, “the lot fell, but the Lord did not accept him,” or “the apostles erred,” or “the Spirit later corrected them.”
But the Spirit-inspired historian simply records Matthias as an apostle.
That is the biblical testimony.
The only reason anyone doubts Matthias is because a system tells them the appointment must be wrong, not because the text says so. Scripture gives no correction, no rebuke, no replacement, no hint of divine disapproval.
The only “evidence” against Matthias comes from human grids that cannot tolerate God working through human means.
So I say this kindly: the evidence that the Lord accepted Matthias is the very thing your system is trying to explain away—the plain words, “he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

As evidence, could you give me a Bible verse that explicitly identifies Matthias as an apostle?

 

[OMC]

Based on your own understanding of the Word of God, it would not be surprising if you concluded that the Lord commanded Solomon alone to build Him a house or a dwelling place.
However, we who have come to know the one true God understand that this command was not given to Solomon alone, but to all those whom God has chosen. We also believe that this command has been given to us.

Therefore, we are carrying out this command by building a house for Him, not merely because of human interpretation, but because we understand it as a command given by God to those whom He has chosen.

What you’ve written is sincere yet built on a system that quietly replaces the plain meaning of Scripture with a spiritualized reinterpretation of commands God gave to specific individuals.

You say that Solomon’s command to build the house of the Lord was not given to Solomon alone, but “to all whom God has chosen,” including yourself. But Scripture never says that. God did not give a universal command to all believers to build Him a physical house. He gave a specific command to a specific man for a specific covenant purpose. That is the pattern of Scripture: God’s truth is universal, but His commands vary according to calling, covenant, and purpose. When you take a command given to Solomon and apply it to yourself, you are not following Scripture—you are following a system that spiritualizes historical commands and treats them as timeless obligations for all the chosen.

I must gently chastise that attitude because it ignores the very thing Scripture emphasizes: God Himself chose Solomon, God Himself gave the blueprint, God Himself appointed the workers, and God Himself filled the house with glory. None of that is transferable by human interpretation. The apostles never taught believers to build a physical house for God. Christ Himself declared that the true temple is His body, and that believers are living stones in a spiritual house. To claim that Solomon’s command is now your command is not exegesis—it is self‑assignment.

So I say this kindly: God’s commands to individuals are not universal mandates for all believers. God’s truth is unchanging, but His instructions are not identical for every person in every era. Let Scripture define your calling, not a system that reassigns ancient commands to modern disciples.

 

[Godsgood]

That just is not correct. God commanded Noah to build an ark. He commanded Moses to speak to Pharaoh, He commanded Saul/Paul to go into Damascus where he would be told what to do. Is God commanding you to build an ark, to speak to Pharaoh or to go into Damascus? Of course not!

It seems like we are just going around in circles with your question. But for the lost sheep who may be reading this, this is my answer:

In answer to your question, my answer is yes. And this is not true only for me; it applies to all those whom God has chosen. All of these commandments have been given to them.

However, it is difficult for you to see and understand this because your understanding of the Word of God is limited primarily to its literal and physical meaning. Therefore, your basis is what can be seen with the physical eyes.

But we who have come to know the one true God have been given understanding through His Word concerning things that cannot be seen with the physical eyes. This is the spiritual message of God contained in His Word. A message that is not perceived through physical sight, but through spiritual understanding.

The difference, therefore, is not in the Word of God itself, but in the way it is understood. The literal may reveal what is seen outwardly, while the spiritual reveals what God intends us to understand beyond what the physical eyes can see.
2 CORINTHIANS 4:18
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[Godsgood]

Yes—you understood me correctly. I said the Lord did not reject Matthias. And the evidence is not hidden, nor indirect, nor speculative. It is right in the passage itself, and it is exactly what your system is forcing you to overlook.
The apostles prayed, “Thou, Lord… show whether of these two Thou hast chosen,” and then they cast lots—a method used only when the decision was placed entirely in God’s hands.
Luke then writes, without hesitation, “the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
If the Lord had rejected Matthias, Luke would not have written that sentence.
He would have written, “the lot fell, but the Lord did not accept him,” or “the apostles erred,” or “the Spirit later corrected them.”
But the Spirit-inspired historian simply records Matthias as an apostle.
That is the biblical testimony.
The only reason anyone doubts Matthias is because a system tells them the appointment must be wrong, not because the text says so. Scripture gives no correction, no rebuke, no replacement, no hint of divine disapproval.
The only “evidence” against Matthias comes from human grids that cannot tolerate God working through human means.
So I say this kindly: the evidence that the Lord accepted Matthias is the very thing your system is trying to explain away—the plain words, “he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

 

[OMC]

It seems like we are just going around in circles with your question. But for the lost sheep who may be reading this, this is my answer:

In answer to your question, my answer is yes. And this is not true only for me; it applies to all those whom God has chosen. All of these commandments have been given to them.

However, it is difficult for you to see and understand this because your understanding of the Word of God is limited primarily to its literal and physical meaning. Therefore, your basis is what can be seen with the physical eyes.

But we who have come to know the one true God have been given understanding through His Word concerning things that cannot be seen with the physical eyes. This is the spiritual message of God contained in His Word. A message that is not perceived through physical sight, but through spiritual understanding.

The difference, therefore, is not in the Word of God itself, but in the way it is understood. The literal may reveal what is seen outwardly, while the spiritual reveals what God intends us to understand beyond what the physical eyes can see.
2 CORINTHIANS 4:18
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

you are universalizing commands God never universalized. DavidLamb is right to say God does not command every believer to build an ark, confront Pharaoh, or travel to Damascus, because Scripture itself shows God giving specific instructions to specific individuals for specific purposes, while giving unchanging truth to all.
Your reply tries to solve this by claiming a “spiritual meaning” behind every command, but that is not spiritual understanding — it is a system that dissolves the historical meaning of Scripture and reassigns every command to “all the chosen.”
Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4:18 speak of fixing our hope on eternal glory, not of reinterpreting Noah’s, Moses’, or Paul’s assignments as universal mandates.
God’s truth is eternal; God’s commands vary by calling, covenant, and purpose.
To claim otherwise is not deeper insight — it is private reinterpretation that erases the very structure of Scripture.

 

[DavidLamb]

It seems like we are just going around in circles with your question. But for the lost sheep who may be reading this, this is my answer:

In answer to your question, my answer is yes. And this is not true only for me; it applies to all those whom God has chosen. All of these commandments have been given to them.

However, it is difficult for you to see and understand this because your understanding of the Word of God is limited primarily to its literal and physical meaning. Therefore, your basis is what can be seen with the physical eyes.

But we who have come to know the one true God have been given understanding through His Word concerning things that cannot be seen with the physical eyes. This is the spiritual message of God contained in His Word. A message that is not perceived through physical sight, but through spiritual understanding.

The difference, therefore, is not in the Word of God itself, but in the way it is understood. The literal may reveal what is seen outwardly, while the spiritual reveals what God intends us to understand beyond what the physical eyes can see.
2 CORINTHIANS 4:18
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

As I have said before, when I question things like whether God is commanding you to build and ark, I am certainly not saying that there are no spiritual lessons for Christians from the account of Noah and the ark. He built a literal ark, because God commanded him to do so. Noah is an example to us of the importance of obeying God, The account in Genesis also tells us that Noah found grace in God's sight, so Noah is also an example to us of the vital importance of God's grace. So I am not limiting what we can learn from Bible accounts to their literal meaning, but that doesn't mean that the literal events did not happen, as the Bible says they did. God did tell Noah to build an ark because He was going to destroy the earth with a literal flood. Those literal happenings have much to teach us spiritually.

 

[Godsgood]

Yes—you understood me correctly. I said the Lord did not reject Matthias. And the evidence is not hidden, nor indirect, nor speculative. It is right in the passage itself, and it is exactly what your system is forcing you to overlook.
The apostles prayed, “Thou, Lord… show whether of these two Thou hast chosen,” and then they cast lots—a method used only when the decision was placed entirely in God’s hands.
Luke then writes, without hesitation, “the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
If the Lord had rejected Matthias, Luke would not have written that sentence.
He would have written, “the lot fell, but the Lord did not accept him,” or “the apostles erred,” or “the Spirit later corrected them.”
But the Spirit-inspired historian simply records Matthias as an apostle.
That is the biblical testimony.
The only reason anyone doubts Matthias is because a system tells them the appointment must be wrong, not because the text says so. Scripture gives no correction, no rebuke, no replacement, no hint of divine disapproval.
The only “evidence” against Matthias comes from human grids that cannot tolerate God working through human means.
So I say this kindly: the evidence that the Lord accepted Matthias is the very thing your system is trying to explain away—the plain words, “he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

The apostles prayed, “Thou, Lord… show whether of these two Thou hast chosen,” and then they cast lots—a method used only when the decision was placed entirely in God’s hands.
Luke then writes, without hesitation, “the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
This was done only by the apostles themselves, and it is not evidence that Matthias became an apostle in place of Judas. If the Lord had accepted him, we would expect to find a clear reference to “the apostle Matthias” in Scripture. However, as the apostles continued carrying out the Lord’s work, we do not find such a reference anywhere in the biblical record.

I have a question for you. Perhaps you have read the entire New Testament. Who was called “another apostle” besides the eleven? Do you know who that was?

 

[DavidLamb]

The apostles prayed, “Thou, Lord… show whether of these two Thou hast chosen,” and then they cast lots—a method used only when the decision was placed entirely in God’s hands.
Luke then writes, without hesitation, “the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
This was done only by the apostles themselves, and it is not evidence that Matthias became an apostle in place of Judas. If the Lord had accepted him, we would expect to find a clear reference to “the apostle Matthias” in Scripture. However, as the apostles continued carrying out the Lord’s work, we do not find such a reference anywhere in the biblical record.

I have a question for you. Perhaps you have read the entire New Testament. Who was called “another apostle” besides the eleven? Do you know who that was?

Yes, two more were. Matthias, and Saul/Paul.

 

[Godsgood]

As I have said before, when I question things like whether God is commanding you to build and ark, I am certainly not saying that there are no spiritual lessons for Christians from the account of Noah and the ark. He built a literal ark, because God commanded him to do so. Noah is an example to us of the importance of obeying God, The account in Genesis also tells us that Noah found grace in God's sight, so Noah is also an example to us of the vital importance of God's grace. So I am not limiting what we can learn from Bible accounts to their literal meaning, but that doesn't mean that the literal events did not happen, as the Bible says they did. God did tell Noah to build an ark because He was going to destroy the earth with a literal flood. Those literal happenings have much to teach us spiritually.

The reason you understand the events of Noah’s time only as a story that happened in the Old Testament is because you see them primarily from a literal and historical perspective.

But we who have come to know the one true God understand that these things are not merely stories. Everything recorded in the Scriptures carries a spiritual meaning and serves as a message from God. Through His Word, God has revealed to us the spiritual meaning behind these events.

That is why we can recognize the fulfillment of these things in our own time. What happened in the days of Noah was not recorded merely as an account of the past, but also carries a spiritual message that God wants His people to understand today.

 

[OMC]

The apostles prayed, “Thou, Lord… show whether of these two Thou hast chosen,” and then they cast lots—a method used only when the decision was placed entirely in God’s hands.
Luke then writes, without hesitation, “the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
This was done only by the apostles themselves, and it is not evidence that Matthias became an apostle in place of Judas. If the Lord had accepted him, we would expect to find a clear reference to “the apostle Matthias” in Scripture. However, as the apostles continued carrying out the Lord’s work, we do not find such a reference anywhere in the biblical record.

I have a question for you. Perhaps you have read the entire New Testament. Who was called “another apostle” besides the eleven? Do you know who that was?

Your reply is built on a system that forces Acts 1 to say less than the text actually says.
You argue that Matthias cannot be an apostle because Scripture never later calls him “the apostle Matthias,” and therefore the lot‑casting is not evidence of his acceptance.
But that reasoning collapses the moment you apply it consistently.
Scripture never calls Thomas “the apostle Thomas.”
It never calls Andrew “the apostle Andrew.”
It never calls Philip “the apostle Philip.”
It never calls Bartholomew “the apostle Bartholomew.”
It never calls Simon the Zealot “the apostle Simon.”
It never calls Thaddaeus “the apostle Thaddaeus.”
If your rule were true — “a man is not an apostle unless Scripture later calls him ‘the apostle X’” — then half of the Twelve would lose their apostleship. That is the danger of a system: it creates a rule Scripture itself does not follow.

Now to your question: Who was called “another apostle” besides the eleven?
The answer is Paul — and his apostleship is explicitly grounded in a resurrection appearance and a direct commission from Christ.
But here is the point you are missing: Paul being “another apostle” does not mean Matthias was rejected.
Luke says Matthias “was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
You are trying to overturn a Spirit‑inspired statement with an argument from silence.
The text gives you one clear apostolic appointment after Judas — Matthias.
It gives you one extraordinary apostolic calling outside the Twelve — Paul.
It gives you zero verses saying Matthias was a mistake.

So I say this kindly: your system requires Matthias to be rejected, but Scripture never says he was.
It requires a later title to validate apostleship, but Scripture never uses that title for most of the Twelve.
It requires Paul to replace Judas, but Acts 1 says Matthias did.
Let the text stand as written: Matthias was numbered with the eleven; Paul was another apostle by direct revelation; and your grid is doing the rewriting, not the Word.

 

[Godsgood]

Yes, two more were. Matthias, and Saul/Paul.

Do not say that there were two replacements when it is very clear that there was only one, because the person being replaced was Judas alone.

 

[Godsgood]

Your reply is built on a system that forces Acts 1 to say less than the text actually says.
You argue that Matthias cannot be an apostle because Scripture never later calls him “the apostle Matthias,” and therefore the lot‑casting is not evidence of his acceptance.
But that reasoning collapses the moment you apply it consistently.
Scripture never calls Thomas “the apostle Thomas.”
It never calls Andrew “the apostle Andrew.”
It never calls Philip “the apostle Philip.”
It never calls Bartholomew “the apostle Bartholomew.”
It never calls Simon the Zealot “the apostle Simon.”
It never calls Thaddaeus “the apostle Thaddaeus.”
If your rule were true — “a man is not an apostle unless Scripture later calls him ‘the apostle X’” — then half of the Twelve would lose their apostleship. That is the danger of a system: it creates a rule Scripture itself does not follow.

Now to your question: Who was called “another apostle” besides the eleven?
The answer is Paul — and his apostleship is explicitly grounded in a resurrection appearance and a direct commission from Christ.
But here is the point you are missing: Paul being “another apostle” does not mean Matthias was rejected.
Luke says Matthias “was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
You are trying to overturn a Spirit‑inspired statement with an argument from silence.
The text gives you one clear apostolic appointment after Judas — Matthias.
It gives you one extraordinary apostolic calling outside the Twelve — Paul.
It gives you zero verses saying Matthias was a mistake.

So I say this kindly: your system requires Matthias to be rejected, but Scripture never says he was.
It requires a later title to validate apostleship, but Scripture never uses that title for most of the Twelve.
It requires Paul to replace Judas, but Acts 1 says Matthias did.
Let the text stand as written: Matthias was numbered with the eleven; Paul was another apostle by direct revelation; and your grid is doing the rewriting, not the Word.

If that is the case, then the one appointed by the Lord to replace Judas was Paul, while Matthias was rejected because it was men who appointed him, not the Lord.
GALATIANS 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Let us not forget that the main point we are emphasizing here is Ephesians 4:11: why are people making the appointments instead of leaving them to God?

The truth may be painful, but it must still be faced. It is possible that those who have been appointed by men today have not actually been accepted by the Lord.

Why? Because the Word of the Lord does not pass away. As Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

If the Lord’s Word remains forever, then the principle He established concerning whom He appoints must also remain. What God has established cannot simply be changed according to human understanding, tradition, or human authority.

 

[OMC]

If that is the case, then the one appointed by the Lord to replace Judas was Paul, while Matthias was rejected because it was men who appointed him, not the Lord.
GALATIANS 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Let us not forget that the main point we are emphasizing here is Ephesians 4:11: why are people making the appointments instead of leaving them to God?

The truth may be painful, but it must still be faced. It is possible that those who have been appointed by men today have not actually been accepted by the Lord.

Why? Because the Word of the Lord does not pass away. As Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

If the Lord’s Word remains forever, then the principle He established concerning whom He appoints must also remain. What God has established cannot simply be changed according to human understanding, tradition, or human authority.

Paul replacing Judas is built on a system, not on what Scripture actually says. Galatians 1:1 proves Paul’s apostleship came directly from Christ, but it does not prove Matthias was rejected; it only proves Paul was not commissioned by human authority. Acts 1 says the apostles prayed, asked the Lord to reveal His choice, cast lots to place the decision entirely in God’s hands, and then Luke — under the Spirit’s inspiration — records that Matthias “was numbered with the eleven apostles.” You are trying to overturn a direct statement of Scripture with an argument from silence, because the New Testament never later uses the title “apostle Matthias.” But by that rule, half of the Twelve lose their apostleship, since Scripture never calls Andrew, Thomas, Philip, Bartholomew, Thaddaeus, or Simon the Zealot “the apostle” either. Paul was indeed “another apostle,” but his calling does not erase Matthias — it simply shows Christ can appoint more than twelve. The real issue behind your argument is your claim that human recognition of ministry is invalid, yet Acts 1 shows the apostles submitting their choice to the Lord, not replacing His authority.