Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
“New” Apostle Matthias: Proof of Church Infallibility

“New” Apostle Matthias: Proof of Church Infallibility

Last updated on: January 4, 2022 at 12:56 pm by Dave Armstrong

“New” Apostle Matthias: Proof of Church Infallibility 2022-01-04T12:56:42-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Acts 1:20-26 (RSV) For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and `His office let another take.’ [21] 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.

I’ve made many biblical arguments for apostolic succession (see the section on my Church web page). The above passage is central in the Catholic (as well as Orthodox and traditional Anglican) argument for that concept. I was just “hangin’ out” today and the following additional, more specific argument occurred to me (I love when that happens!).

It is, I submit, an additional argument for the infallible authority of the Church, which in turn becomes one of many biblical arguments against the man-made Protestant tradition that is its rule of faith: sola Scriptura, which denies the infallibility of Church and tradition alike and reserves it for Scripture alone.

This argument has to do with how Matthias was chosen. The time came to replace Judas as an apostle, so what did the remaining eleven original disciples / apostles do? Somehow they narrowed down the candidates to two men: Barsabbas and Matthias. So this “stage one” procedure was purely human selection, much as Catholics (through high-ranking Cardinals) vote for a pope or like how many Christian denominations hold votes for President, etc.

They then appeal directly to God, to make known His will for the person whom He “hast chosen”. It’s casually assumed that the choice has already been made by God and is a function of His providence and ultimate, supreme rule of His Church (Peter and the popes being the human rulers).

In fact, it is Peter above who initiated this process, and did so by citing Old Testament Scripture. But of course this Scripture was of no avail in actually choosing the God-ordained man for the job. That had to come from a direct word of God: an answer to prayer. Thus, in its very nature, this is an “unbiblical” procedure.

The process of choosing the “new” apostle was not achieved by applying sola Scriptura. It came, rather, through Church authority and direct guidance by God (what we call special revelation). And such divine guidance, I submit, must be infallible by its very nature (God not being able to be mistaken, in His providence and omniscience). Moreover, they didn’t simply collectively discern what they believed to be God’s answer through prayer. They cast lots, and this method selected Matthias, and was thought to reflect God’s infallible choice.

One article noted that the great Anglican evangelist John Wesley cast lots to make important decisions, and that Baptists in particular were most uncomfortable with this. Ironically, it never mentions Acts 1:26, which is the explicitly biblical basis for this practice. Once again, then, no doubt these protesting Baptists thought of themselves as “Bible only” folks, yet seem to have overlooked the relevant biblical text.

The passage above in Acts 1 doesn’t show the slightest disapproval of casting lots, through which God’s specific will would become known. Certainly if it was intrinsically wrong, the text would make note of it. Instead, we have eleven of the original disciples of Jesus, led by Peter, using this method to choose an apostle.

This is a God, after all, Who struck Uzzah dead on the spot for simply trying to prevent the ark of the covenant from falling on the ground. He reached out to steady it and was struck dead (2 Sam 6:1-7; 1 Chr 13:9-12). And in two incidents in the book of Acts, both involving St. Peter, God, or Peter speaking as a representative of Him, express divine disapproval without any ambiguity whatever.

Acts 5:1-11 tells the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who “sold a piece of property, and . . . kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (5:1-2). St. Peter described this as a “Satan”-influenced “lie to the Holy Spirit” (5:3). Consequently, Ananias “fell down and died” (5:5), followed three hours later by his wife Sapphira (5:7, 10).

The second incident involved Simon the former sorcerer, who desired to pay money to the apostles to receive the power of being able to lay hands on people so that they could receive the Holy Spirit (8:9, 17-19). St. Peter rebuked this in no uncertain terms:

Acts 8:20-23 . . . “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! [21] You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. [22] Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. [23] For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”

Both of these incidents involved false or unethical opinions or practices that were immediately judged: one of them with a judgment of death from God. Peter was central in both. Therefore, it makes no sense whatsoever to think that Peter would have missed something so inherently wrong and wicked as casting lots: if indeed this was (in God’s eyes) a wicked and impermissible thing.

Peter shows no such awareness; nor does the larger narrative of the text from Luke, who had no qualms about condemning (through the words of Peter) the improprieties of Ananias and Sapphira and Simon. The Bible never hesitates to expose sinful actions, including, famously, Peter’s own lapse (three denials of the Lord). If Peter was mistaken here, certainly the inspired Bible would make it plain that he was.

In fact, there was a long Old Testament history of approved use of the casting of lots. God Himself commanded Moses to have his brother Aaron cast lots regarding an offering to Him on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur):

Leviticus 16:7-10 Then he shall take the two goats, and set them before the LORD at the door of the tent of meeting; [8] and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Aza’zel. [9] And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD, and offer it as a sin offering; [10] but the goat on which the lot fell for Aza’zel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Aza’zel.

Joshua divided up the Promised Land based on the use of lots:

Joshua 18:6-11 And you shall describe the land in seven divisions and bring the description here to me; and I will cast lots for you here before the LORD our God. [7] The Levites have no portion among you, for the priesthood of the LORD is their heritage; and Gad and Reuben and half the tribe of Manas’seh have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan eastward, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave them.” [8] So the men started on their way; and Joshua charged those who went to write the description of the land, saying, “Go up and down and write a description of the land, and come again to me; and I will cast lots for you here before the LORD in Shiloh.” [9] So the men went and passed up and down in the land and set down in a book a description of it by towns in seven divisions; then they came to Joshua in the camp at Shiloh, [10] and Joshua cast lots for them in Shiloh before the LORD; and there Joshua apportioned the land to the people of Israel, to each his portion. [11] The lot of the tribe of Benjamin according to its families came up, and the territory allotted to it fell between the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Joseph.

Temple duties were determined in the same manner (24 different appointments!):

1 Chronicles 24:5-8, 18-19 They organized them by lot, all alike, for there were officers of the sanctuary and officers of God among both the sons of Elea’zar and the sons of Ith’amar. [6] And the scribe Shemai’ah the son of Nethan’el, a Levite, recorded them in the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahim’elech the son of Abi’athar, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the priests and of the Levites; one father’s house being chosen for Elea’zar and one chosen for Ith’amar. [7] The first lot fell to Jehoi’arib, the second to Jedai’ah, [8] the third to Harim, the fourth to Se-o’rim, . . . [18] the twenty-third to Delai’ah, the twenty-fourth to Ma-azi’ah. [19] These had as their appointed duty in their service to come into the house of the LORD according to the procedure established for them by Aaron their father, as the LORD God of Israel had commanded him.

See also:

Nehemiah 10:34 We have likewise cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, according to our fathers’ houses, at times appointed, year by year, to burn upon the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the law. (cf. 11:1)

So we’re back to the bottom-line question of casting lots to determine who would replace Judas as an apostle. There are three choices in interpreting it, or so it seems to me:

It was intrinsically evil. The argument I just made by analogy and the examples from the Old Testament destroy this option.

It was sheer chance or happenstance. This is implausible because it runs contrary to the expressed desire for God’s will to be made known, and His providential control over the affairs of men. God made His will known. Technically, in Christian theology, there is no such thing as mere chance in the overall scheme of things. I’m not saying that God controls every throw of the dice in a Monopoly game, but in the “larger things” He does.

It was a means for God to concretely express His will as regards the question of the choice of Judas’ replacement. This option alone makes sense, all things considered.

This being the case, it is also an infallible exercise of God-guided government in the Church. The apostles exercised infallible authority through casting lots, which revealed God’s infallible will. In a similar but not totally analogous way, the apostles and elders at the council of Jerusalem exercised equally profound infallible and binding authority and issued a decree that St. Paul went around proclaiming to all and sundry to observe (Acts 16:4).

They had declared “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (15:28), thus invoking obviously infallible authority, as it came from the Holy Spirit, Who is God.

The choosing of Matthias is a further instance of divine infallible guidance, exercised through Church authority and authoritative persons in the Church, appointed by Jesus Himself (the remaining eleven apostles), or by these eleven (Matthias).

Anyway one looks at it, this is not a sola Scriptura rule of faith. It’s the furthest thing from it.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Lawrence OP (4-21-08). Stained glass from St Mary’s church in Buckland, depicting Matthias’ selection [Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license]

***

Summary: How the eleven apostles chose the successor of Judas, Matthias (by casting lots after asking God’s guidance) provides a fascinating argument against sola Scriptura.

***

Church (Ecclesiology)

conciliar infallibility

Previous Post

December 30, 2021

Dispute on "The Church" in the NT

Next Post

January 4, 2022 Confirming Paul's Apostleship: Infallible Church Proof

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz