r/CatholicApologetics

Disclaimer: I, as a Catholic, hold to Apostolic Succession.

The use of Matthias as a case study for apostolic succession, while good at the surface level, collapses under scrutiny.

1. Matthias was appointed as a replacement for Judas. The criteria for Matthias's appointment were limited. "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all 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.” (Acts 1:21-22)
2. Luke does not present this as a normal process when one of the Apostles die. The death of James bar Zebedee mentions no nomination process, only the prayers of the Church after the subsequent apprehension of Peter.

Better cases biblically for Apostolic Succession remain Timothy and Titus, particularly the former. We hear explicitly that Paul laid hands on him (2 Tim. 1:6), and that he was not to be hasty in laying hands on others (1 Tim. 5:22). Both letters include criteria for ordaining presbyters/overseers (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1) and deacons (1 Tim. 3).

The debate I am analyzing is found at the following link for those who wish to watch the whole thing:

[https://www.youtube.com/live/MNM46W2ruGM?is=hVh\_mQXf-I56aNTP](https://www.youtube.com/live/MNM46W2ruGM?is=hVh_mQXf-I56aNTP)

A good debate overall, but here are the key moments that could have turned it for Ethan.

Ryan first defines his system very clearly.

At 3:24–3:34, he says:

“God changes us, sanctifies us. But we do need to make a good distinction between justification, how we get made right before God, and sanctification, which is the obedience that comes as a result of God saving us.”

So Ryan’s order is:

justification/salvation → sanctification/obedience

(1): Ethan should have immediately gone to 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Paul says:

“God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, THROUGH sanctification by the Spirit AND belief in the truth.”
—2 Thessalonians 2:13

Ryan says sanctification comes as a result of salvation.

Paul says we are saved through sanctification and belief.

Then connect that to Romans 6:19:

“Present your members as slaves to righteousness LEADING TO SANCTIFICATION”.
—Romans 6:19

So Paul gives us:

righteous action → sanctification → saved through sanctification and belief

That’s essentially: saved through faith AND good works.

Ryan therefore has to explain why “through belief” is instrumental, but “through sanctification”(good works) somehow is not.

(2): Ethan should have pressed Ryan on his perfection argument

Around 1:33:43–1:34:05, Ryan says:

“There’s two ways of attaining eternal life. Either you be perfect or you have Jesus.”

Then:

“If you were perfect, Ethan, then yeah, you’d get to heaven just based on the law. But you’re not. That’s why you can’t rely on the law.”

So Ryan’s objection is not that obedience could never function salvifically.

His objection is that our obedience is imperfect.

Ethan should have immediately asked:

“Does an instrument itself have to be perfect in order to justify?”

Because Ryan had already said:

“Faith is the instrumental cause… it’s the instrument by which we access the atonement of Christ… through the means of faith only.”
—7:18–7:28

So Ethan’s next question should have been:

“Then does my faith have to be perfect?”

This is where I think Ethan failed to do enough homework on how Ryan himself defines saving faith.

In another discussion, “Interview: Ryan Hemelaar with [NeedGod.net](http://needgod.net/) Converse with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox,” hosted by Marlon Wilson on The Gospel Truth, Ryan says at 2:10–2:16:

“To me that doesn’t sound like he’s fully convinced though, cuz like how the Bible describes faith is that you’re fully convinced that God would do what God promised to do.”

So Ethan should have known to ask:

“If someone isn’t fully convinced, wouldn’t that mean his faith is weak and therefore not salvific?”

Given Ryan’s binary approach, that is the bait.

If Ryan says yes, Ethan springs Romans 14:

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him…”
—Romans 14:1

Ryan might try to escape by saying:

“Sure, Christians should welcome him. That doesn’t mean he is saved.”

Except Paul immediately says why he should be welcomed:

“for God has welcomed him.”
—Romans 14:3

Then Paul closes the discussion with:

“Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you.”
—Romans 15:7

So this is not merely Christians being hospitable toward an unbeliever.

Paul explicitly says the man is weak in faith, that God has welcomed him, and then uses Christ’s welcoming of Christians as the model for that same reception.
That is the trap Ethan missed:

“If someone who is weak in faith has already been welcomed by God and Christ, how can ‘fully convinced’ be the dividing line between saving and non-saving faith?”

At that point Ryan has to prove his threshold from Scripture.

If weak faith can belong to someone whom God and Christ have welcomed, then imperfect faith can still be salvific.

Ryan therefore cannot simply argue:

“Our obedience is imperfect, therefore it cannot function salvifically.”

He still has to explain why genuine-but-imperfect faith can function instrumentally while genuine-but-imperfect obedience cannot.

That takes us right back to:

righteous action → sanctification → saved through sanctification and belief

(3): Ethan should have used the Romans 4:3 reversal

Ryan also says:

“What God looks at is not even my faith. He looks at the righteousness of Christ that’s being imputed to me…”
—7:54–8:21

Yet Romans 4:3 says:

“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

Reverse the moral quality and expose the Protestant reading as false:

“Abraham lied to God, and it was counted to him as unrighteousness.”

Would anyone interpret that as God crediting Abraham with the unrighteous reputation of Satan?

Of course not.

The natural meaning is that Abraham’s own act is being reckoned according to its moral quality.

So when Paul actually says Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness, the sentence itself naturally points to Abraham’s faith being reckoned righteous.

No reputation swap is required by the grammar.

IN CONCLUSION

Ethan missed three major opportunities:

Ryan said sanctification comes after salvation. Ethan should have answered with 2 Thessalonians 2:13 + Romans 6:19.

Ryan said obedience would save if it were perfect. Ethan should have asked whether faith itself must be perfect to function as an instrument.

More importantly, Ethan should have done enough homework on Ryan to know that Ryan defines saving faith as being “fully convinced.”

That gave him the perfect trap:

“If someone isn’t fully convinced, wouldn’t that mean his faith is weak and therefore not salvific?”

If Ryan says *yes(*he will!) Romans 14 and 15 create the problem. Paul describes the man as “weak in faith,” says “God has welcomed him,” and then says Christians are to welcome one another “as Christ has welcomed you.”

Ryan therefore has to explain how someone with weak faith(aka: “not fully convinced”) can already be welcomed by God and Christ if “fully convinced” is supposedly the dividing line between saving and non-saving faith.

Ryan defended imputed righteousness from Romans 4. Ethan should have used the simple “Abraham lied” reversal to show that the grammar naturally points to Abraham’s own act being reckoned according to its moral quality.

Those three moves would have forced Ryan to defend the actual mechanics of his system instead of repeatedly classifying difficult passages as “fruit,” “Christian living,” or “not about salvation.”