Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[Marymog]

(2 Tim. 2:2) says nothing of apostolic succession. It only encourages Timothy to commit to faithful men that which he was taught also.

Oh great. Apostolic succession is the lineage of Judas? Please.

Stranger

Hi Stranger,

I have a question based on your opinion. If Timothy was to commit to faithful men that which he was taught, then what are those faithful men to do? Commit to OTHER faithful men that which they were taught by Timothy? (rhetorical question)

Paul + Timothy + men Timothy taught + men they were to teach = Apostolic Succession.

Paul died in the year 67AD. It is believed Timothy died in the year 97AD. That means the men that Timothy taught died in the early 2nd Century; lets say for easy math, 137AD. That accounts for the first 70 years AFTER PAULS DEATH of Church teachings all being the same. If we add the 64 years of Paul's teaching since Jesus death (33AD) that totals 104 years of consistent teaching from the Apostles to the men who Timothy taught. Hence, Apostolic Succession.

Do you know your Christian history? Do you know who Clement of Rome was? His letters were considered scripture in the early church.

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians, 80AD).

Fascinating that it was in 80AD he wrote this....AND IT MATCHES THE TEACHINGS IN SCRIPTURE.

Irenaeus, 156 years after the death of Christ, re-affirms Apostolic Succession which was taught in scripture:

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 189AD).

So, in your opinion, when did this Apostolic Succession end????

BTW....Judas was replaced by Mathias which means someone SUCCEDED an Apostle which is scriptural proof of Apostolic Succession.

IHS....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Baptism is a work of faith. So yes we believe by faith and when we ready we are baptised.

Hi,

Oh goodness. Your response confused me more. I apologize.

What do we have to be ready for before we are baptized?

Mary

 

[Helen]

What do we have to be ready for before we are baptized?

Mary

That is a very good question. :)
I so wish I had been 'really ready'...I just got baptised because the pastor who lead me to the Lord told me I need to be. Six week later I was baptised.
So for me it was just an act of obedience with no understanding of what it all really was signifying.

Much later , I came to understand the strength to be gained in baptism against the enemy when he whispers negatively in our minds....
I learned later that I could tell the devil to get lost...because by baptism I had gone under the water a daughter of Adam, and came out of the water as a daughter of God! I was no "in Christ, raise with Him in baptism.." :)
Colossians 2:12
12 "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

That to me is "the ready" of the act of baptism. :)

 

[Marymog]

That is a very good question. :)
I so wish I had been 'really ready'...I just got baptised because the pastor who lead me to the Lord told me I need to be. Six week later I was baptised. So for me it was just an act of obedience with no understanding of what it all really was signifying .

Much later , I came to understand the strength to be gained in baptism against the enemy when he whispers negatively in our minds....
I learned later that I could tell the devil to get lost...because by baptism I had gone under the water a daughter of Adam, and came out of the water as a daughter of God! I was no "in Christ, raise with Him in baptism.." :)
Colossians 2:12
12 "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

That to me is "the ready" of the act of baptism. :)

Hi BG,

Thank you. I believe that a lot Christians have "no understanding of what it (baptism) all really was signifying".

I believe scripture makes it pretty clear that baptism is a remission of sin and it also conveys the Holy Spirit upon us. (Acts2:38, Acts 22:16, Acts 19:1-6, Matthew 3:16)

There is nothing we have to DO too be ready except BELIEVE IN HIM. From your testimony it sounds like you believed and then got baptized.

Believe in Him. Get baptized. Sins are washed away. Holy Spirit comes upon you.

Then the real hard works begin. Walking in His foot steps. :)

IHS...Mary

 

[Helen]

<snip>
There is nothing we have to DO too be ready except BELIEVE IN HIM. From your testimony it sounds like you believed and then got baptized.

Believe in Him. Get baptized. Sins are washed away. Holy Spirit comes upon you.

Then the real hard works begin. Walking in His foot steps. :)

IHS...Mary

I do believe that there is nothing that we 'have' to be ready.
But the thread's OP is about multiple baptisms for a person.
I myself have friends who went back 20yrs later to get re-baptised because they had no idea what it meant ( ie all the depth of what is happening) when they were first were believers.
So no, there is no "Have to be ready" about it...and that is fine, if the pastor teaches what it all means, not all do!!
I also do not believe there is any "Have to" about baptism.
Two of my grandchildren are in their adulthood now and never did get baptised. Their believing and life is no different the the grandchild that have been baptised. Some do, some don't. I see no law.
(I know this is another hot old chestnut...not what the thread is about )

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well I do sincerely hope you are as close to Him as you think your are.

You do not know who is lying, even though you think you do. You should communicate with God about it.

But a person can do exactly that with his misguided direction as a result of delusion. This is why He warns us here:

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matt 6:33

He does not say to seek the church or the Church first. Those are to be among the added things.

I would ask you to ask God to give you understanding with regard to the following verse as it relates to you. You know something about the Bible, but little or nothing about the Word of God:

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." I Cor 13:2
Rather following my suggestion you may rebuke me again, but then I will pray for you.

No, I did not do that. I moved away from God, but when He drew me back to Him it was to a richer fuller place than I had ever before known. There are Catholics in good places with God, but I a do not see from your fruits that you are one of them. I will continue to pray for you.

And all of this smacks of the same denial that I've seen in your other posts.
Jesus and His Church are inseparable (Acts 9:4-5, Heb. 1:22-23).

The bottom line is that Jesus said that those who rejected His Church rejected HIM. You did precisely that when you abandoned your Catholic faith in favor of easy-believism.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course it was derogatory. It is derogatory today. The words, 'Roman Catholic Church' don't have to be used by those who recognized the difference between the Roman Church and the Catholic Church. Words such as 'Romanist' to distinguish between Catholic and the Roman Church speak to the same.

Being the Romanist you are, you want a single document or decree declaring that the Roman church is the Roman Catholic Church. A single document is not necessary. That those who recognized the Romanists as different than the Catholic Church, and would later label the Roman Church The Roman Catholic Church, is proof that they saw a difference. Rome wants to be over all the Church...the Catholic Church. But she isn't. And never will be.

As for Timothy's Bishopric - as I said before, things are not so just because you say they are. And you have no Scripture to prove any apostolic succession. You simply try to find Scripture to make it try and support apostolic succession. There is no apostolic succession to make 'go away'.

Stranger

The text above in RED solidifies the fact that you have absolutely ZERO evidence for your false claims of "Romanism" and a "Roman" Church.
Dozens of false claims and it all leads up to this: Squat. Your woeful ignorance of history doesn't help you because you can't even understand that it was Henry VIII who invented the idea of a "Roman Catholic" Church. You're just parroting his moronic ignorance.

As for Apostolic Succession - I already showed you a perfect example of it in Acts 12 where Judas's "BISHOPRIC" was filled.
Another perfect example of it is at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. the Apostles. Paul and Barnabas didn't settle matter of the Judaizers. They had to go to the TWELVE to have a decision rendered. Acts 15:24 explicitly states:
Acts 15:24
We have heard that some went out from us WITHOUT OUR AUTHORIZATION and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

All of your petty denials and anti-Catholic bias cannot make this simply "go away" . . .

 

[junobet]

Shame on you. Not true.

The declaration said that there were still differences between the Catholic and Lutheran articulation of the doctrine of justification. The declaration does not cover all that either church teaches about justification but it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification. The declaration shows remaining differences.

The Lutheran Church went through the spectacle of approving the document with the clear expectation that the Catholic Church would immediately do likewise.

The Catholic Church objected to a number of statements in the joint declaration and insisted on clarifications before it could be approved.

The Lutheran Church consented and an annex was submitted.

Did you even read the document??????

Mary

Can nobody understand what "pretty much" means? Fact is that the hair you are trying to split is tiny. Contrary to long-lived prejudice our respective views on justification is the least of the topics that divides our churches these days. If you are that keen on bickering between Catholics and Protestants you're better off arguing about the eucharist, church hierarchy, etc.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The unity of the Church is through the Holy Ghost, not doctrine. We are unified in the Church if we have the Spirit of Christ. Faith in Christ is what brings us into that unity. After that, doctrine then becomes important.

Just because believers refuse to be under the Roman papal rule does not mean the Church is splintering. Rome has always caused division. She did it first with the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054. Why? Because the Eastern Church refused to be under the papal rule. This was long before Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

So, if you want to blame anyone for causing division, blame the Roman Church.

Stranger

I didn't say that the Church is splintered - I said that all of your non-Catholic factions are splintered - and continue to splinter.

The Unity of the Church is FROM the Holy Spirit who unites us through common doctrine.
The fact that you have such disregard for doctrine is a perfect witness to the doctrinal mess that is Protestantism . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you are saying we do the work. LOL...LOL. now let's eliminate this ERROR and tell the truth. 2 Timothy 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began". now in 1 Cor. 13:1-3 is the apostle Paul speaking in tongues of angel, or prophesying, or pastoring? NO.

here's why, all these action are of GOD, and not men. you ERROR when you quoted Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them". HIS, HIS, HIS, workmanship to work through. not U. so you didn't know that did you. it is God who work through us. it's not us.

so that's ERROR #1. I'll give you a chance to response.

PCY.

Your false idea that God does our works FOR us is Scripturally-Bankrupt.
Eph 2:10 states that he PREPARED works in advance for US to complete.

The works spoken of in Matt. 25:31-46 are those very things that God prepared for US to do - and gives us the choice to do them or to NOT do them. That's the entire reasoning behind the teaching about the Sheep and Goats.

The work of redemption was done by HIM.
The work of our sanctification depends on US and our cooperation.

 

[Marymog]

Can nobody understand what "pretty much" means? Fact is that the hair you are trying to split is tiny. Contrary to long-lived prejudice our respective views on justification is the least of the topics that divides our churches these days. If you are that keen on bickering between Catholics and Protestants you're better off arguing about the eucharist, church hierarchy, etc.

Thank you junobet. No splitting hairs on my part.

The Catholic Church has not watered down it's teaching on Justification to 'pretty much agree with Luther' as you suggested.

Your suggestion that the Catholic Church pretty much agreed with Luther on this doctrine is completely and utterly FALSE. The Catholic Church has held to it's 2,000 year teaching on justification and found common ground with the Lutheran Churches teaching which began 500 years ago. This new teaching, Luther's teaching, was completely foreign to the Christian faith for the 1,500 years BEFORE it was contrived by Luther.

So I ask you again, which you never answered: Did you even read the document??????

Because if you had, you would come to the same conclusion that I did.

IHS...Mary

 

[101G]

Your false idea that God does our works FOR us is Scripturally-Bankrupt.
Eph 2:10 states that he PREPARED works in advance for US to complete.

The works spoken of in Matt. 25:31-46 are those very things that God prepared for US to do - and gives us the choice to do them or to NOT do them. That's the entire reasoning behind the teaching about the Sheep and Goats.

The work of redemption was done by HIM.
The work of our sanctification depends on US and our cooperation.

your statement are false. that's why he is the GIFT in us. he do the work. don't make false accretion on the scriptures. #1. Eph 2:10 is stating he called and saved us for his purpose. that why he came in Spirit on Pentecost. we're the Spirit hands and feet that he work through.

Now your Matthew 25:31. the apostle Paul is saying exacting what the Lord Jesus is saying. Listen, 1 Corinthians 13:1 "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal”. what the apostle is saying, if I don’t have GOD, the only true God the Holy Spirit, he’s NOTHING.. Yes, God, Charity is Love, and God is Love. It’s GOD, the Holy Spirit in you who do the works. This is exactly what the apostle James was saying in Chapter 2 of his book. Listen, James 2:1 "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons”. see, if God dwells in you a sister or a brother need something the Spirit supply that need. it is the Christ in you will DO it.

See, these here in Matthew 25:31 are not saved, just like the demons in James book as he said about them. Was it not you who pointed out that the demon are not SAVED. So are these, not having the LOVE of God/Christ in them. See, they didn’t have the Spirit in them or the LOVE of Christ in them they was NOT SAVED.. Hence NO works. if Christ be in you he will visit the sick, and those in prison.. ect. that's why those on the left was headed for destruction, because thwy was not his. Again the scripture, 2 Timothy 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began”. did you not read the fine print of the contract. "NOT I, but he in me, he doth the work".... .

Let me explain something to you. Many have misunderstood Paul and James on Faith and works. We will make it simple for you. No man or woman walk on a job site and start working, and then expect a pay check at the end of the week. No one must be hired first. The hiring is the SALVATION. If God is not in you then all your, YOUR work is in vain. just like thos in the Judgmen on the left. they was never hired/saved. As the pink panther said “exit stage LEFT”…. (smile).

Now, he said, for his own purpose and grace. Are we not in GRACE? Yes, so it’s not our work but his. As co-workers? Why, because he is in Spirit (see Acts chapter 2) and it's not us, but him. when Paul and Peter step in Rome, the Lord Jesus step in Rome. Are you getting this. See, we’re the HANDS and FEET of God/JESUS till he return. shame on you, this is basic christian teaching.

PS that the second ERROR, don't let it be another.
PCY.

 

[junobet]

Thank you junobet. No splitting hairs on my part.

The Catholic Church has not watered down it's teaching on Justification to 'pretty much agree with Luther' as you suggested.

Your suggestion that the Catholic Church pretty much agreed with Luther on this doctrine is completely and utterly FALSE. The Catholic Church has held to it's 2,000 year teaching on justification and found common ground with the Lutheran Churches teaching which began 500 years ago. This new teaching, Luther's teaching, was completely foreign to the Christian faith for the 1,500 years BEFORE it was contrived by Luther.

So I ask you again, which you never answered: Did you even read the document??????

Because if you had, you would come to the same conclusion that I did.

IHS...Mary

Why do so many people here have to shout in big letters?

Yes, Marymog. I did read the document and I have already had the same discussion with BoL.

But pray tell me, why do you guys find it so offensive that a 500 year misunderstanding has been mostly cleared up by now. Because that is what I understand, when I read:

“4.In their discussion of the doctrine of justification, all the dialogue reports as well as the responses show a high degree of agreement in their approaches and conclusions. (…) The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church[9] are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations. (…) 13.Opposing interpretations and applications of the biblical message of justification were in the sixteenth century a principal cause of the division of the Western church and led as well to doctrinal condemnations. A common understanding of justification is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division. By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification, with the result that this Joint Declaration is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today's partner. (…) 14.The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification. This encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it.

15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]

16.All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God's gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers and who, at the same time, leads believers into that renewal of life which God will bring to completion in eternal life.

17.We also share the conviction that the message of justification directs us in a special way towards the heart of the New Testament witness to God's saving action in Christ: it tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way. (…)” Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

As a Protestant I am rather fond of Luther in many ways, but I would not claim he came up with something entirely new when he first formulated his views on justification. In fact back then he was a pious Catholic, who wanted to bring the Church back on track, not split it.

 

[Marymog]

Why do so many people here have to shout in big letters?

Yes, Marymog. I did read the document and I have already had the same discussion with BoL.

As a Protestant I am rather fond of Luther in many ways, but I would not Claim he came up with something entirely new when he formulated his views on justification. In fact back then he was a pious Catholic, who wanted to bring the Church back on track, not split it.

Luther didn't come up with something entirely new when he formulated his views on justification?

Please provide me any written historical teachings before Martin Luther that support his doctrine on Justification. (a website link would suffice)

How could Luther bring The Church back on track when The Church was teaching the same thing on justification since the death of Christ? Provide proof that anything else was taught.

Further more it is a fact that the Lutheran view of justification has always been closest to the Catholic view in many respects. It was BORN from the Catholic view as you well know. Luther taught the necessity of baptism for justification, the practice of infant baptism, and the possibility of losing one's salvation.

Some of the disputes between Catholic and Lutheran teachings on the matter were due to differences of emphasis rather than contradictions of belief.

As I stated earlier the Catholic Church did not proceed to agreeing to the document (the annex) until clarifications were made and that the document accurately reflected Catholic teaching.

The Church did not, and I repeat with emphasis, did not as you suggested 'pretty much agree with Luther'. That statement is on the verge of a lie. I will classify it as a misunderstanding.

IHS....Mary

 

[Stranger]

The text above in RED solidifies the fact that you have absolutely ZERO evidence for your false claims of "Romanism" and a "Roman" Church.
Dozens of false claims and it all leads up to this: Squat. Your woeful ignorance of history doesn't help you because you can't even understand that it was Henry VIII who invented the idea of a "Roman Catholic" Church. You're just parroting his moronic ignorance.

As for Apostolic Succession - I already showed you a perfect example of it in Acts 12 where Judas's "BISHOPRIC" was filled.
Another perfect example of it is at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. the Apostles. Paul and Barnabas didn't settle matter of the Judaizers. They had to go to the TWELVE to have a decision rendered. Acts 15:24 explicitly states:
Acts 15:24
We have heard that some went out from us WITHOUT OUR AUTHORIZATION and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

All of your petty denials and anti-Catholic bias cannot make this simply "go away" . . .

Henry the VIII broke with Rome between 1532 and 1524.

From (Catholic.com by Catholic answer staff, as to the origin of the Roman Catholic Church). "Different variants of the 'Roman' insult appeared at different times. The earliest form was the noun 'Romanist' (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525."

The distinction between Roman and Catholic existed before Henry the VIII.

You showed nothing but the replacement of one of the twelve. That is not apostolic succession. And in (Acts 15:24) it is James who is head of the Jeruslaem Church, not one of the twelve Apostles. And James, one of the 12, the brother of John was already killed. (Acts 12:2) There is nothing to indicate that all other 11 apostles were present. And nothing to indicate any succession of apostolic authority.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Why do so many people here have to shout in big letters?

It's not shouting. It's emphasis on points to catch your eye. :)

Love, Mary

 

[Stranger]

I didn't say that the Church is splintered - I said that all of your non-Catholic factions are splintered - and continue to splinter.

The Unity of the Church is FROM the Holy Spirit who unites us through common doctrine.
The fact that you have such disregard for doctrine is a perfect witness to the doctrinal mess that is Protestantism . . .

When the Reformation began, you don't call that a splintering of the Church? When the Eastern Orthodox refused to submitt to papal authority, you don't call that a splintering of the Church? Any Protestant divisions after that are the result of the splintering of the Church in the East or the Reformation.

No, you are wrong. Within the Church there can be some differences of doctrine. The unity is the Holy Ghost...obtained by faith in Christ.

I do see the importance of doctrine. I have said it many times. Which is why I am against any type of 'Romanism'. Because your doctrine is full of error. Much of Protestant doctrine is full of error. And I am against that also.

All of the divisions we now have in the Church are due to the wrong doctrine of the Roman Church. The Roman Church wanted power and authority over all the Church of God. And the Church of God said, no.

Stranger

 

[101G]

All of the divisions we now have in the Church are due to the wrong doctrine of the Roman Church. The Roman Church wanted power and authority over all the Church of God. And the Church of God said, no.

You're correct there. we must do as the bible say, "RENEW our MINDS. the prophet and king, David said, "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me".

so many are NOT being led by the Spirit, but by men.

PCY

 

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger,

I have a question based on your opinion. If Timothy was to commit to faithful men that which he was taught, then what are those faithful men to do? Commit to OTHER faithful men that which they were taught by Timothy? (rhetorical question)

Paul + Timothy + men Timothy taught + men they were to teach = Apostolic Succession.

Paul died in the year 67AD. It is believed Timothy died in the year 97AD. That means the men that Timothy taught died in the early 2nd Century; lets say for easy math, 137AD. That accounts for the first 70 years AFTER PAULS DEATH of Church teachings all being the same. If we add the 64 years of Paul's teaching since Jesus death (33AD) that totals 104 years of consistent teaching from the Apostles to the men who Timothy taught. Hence, Apostolic Succession.

Do you know your Christian history? Do you know who Clement of Rome was? His letters were considered scripture in the early church.

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians, 80AD).

Fascinating that it was in 80AD he wrote this....AND IT MATCHES THE TEACHINGS IN SCRIPTURE.

Irenaeus, 156 years after the death of Christ, re-affirms Apostolic Succession which was taught in scripture:

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 189AD).

So, in your opinion, when did this Apostolic Succession end????

BTW....Judas was replaced by Mathias which means someone SUCCEDED an Apostle which is scriptural proof of Apostolic Succession.

IHS....Mary

All believers are in succession of the apostles faith. Of course. I have no problem with that. Paul and Timothy and others passed down the faith we have received and believed. Is that what you are saying?

But Clements letters are not Scripture. Thus, it doesn't matter. Irenaeus writings are not Scripture. Thus, it doesn't matter. What does Scripture say? That is what matters. And Scripture does not support any apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession didn't end because it never existed.

Stranger

 

[junobet]

Luther didn't come up with something entirely new when he formulated his views on justification?

Please provide me any written historical teachings before Martin Luther that support his doctrine on Justification. (a website link would suffice)

How could Luther bring The Church back on track when The Church was teaching the same thing on justification since the death of Christ? Provide proof that anything else was taught.

Further more it is a fact that the Lutheran view of justification has always been closest to the Catholic view in many respects. It was BORN from the Catholic view as you well know. Luther taught the necessity of baptism for justification, the practice of infant baptism, and the possibility of losing one's salvation.

Some of the disputes between Catholic and Lutheran teachings on the matter were due to differences of emphasis rather than contradictions of belief.

As I stated earlier the Catholic Church did not proceed to agreeing to the document (the annex) until clarifications were made and that the document accurately reflected Catholic teaching.

The Church did not, and I repeat with emphasis, did not as you suggested 'pretty much agree with Luther'. That statement is on the verge of a lie. I will classify it as a misunderstanding.

IHS....Mary

As for early Catholic views on justification you may want to get into the dispute between Pelagius and Augustine. Augustine won, Pelagius was condemned by Pope Innocent I. If this helps: Augustine on Justification (what you must know) - Chris Castaldo


As for the Joint Declaration: “The document was approved by the Vatican under the auspices of the PCPCU, which was established by Pope John XXIII at the Second Vatican Council and is headed by a Catholic bishop; thus, the declaration is (at least) an exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the episcopally consecrated individuals who authorized the statement. A clarification was issued jointly by the PCPCU and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,[8] which is also an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. “(Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification - Wikipedia)

: “The "Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification" represents a significant progress in mutual understanding and in the coming together in dialogue of the parties concerned; it shows that there are many points of convergence between the Catholic position and the Lutheran position on a question that has been for centuries so controversial. It can certainly be affirmed that a high degree of agreement has been reached, as regards both the approach to the question and the judgement it merits (1). It is rightly stated that there is "a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification"

Catholic official response



You are certainly right that Lutherans and Catholics have more in common than Lutherans and some of the more exotic branches of Protestantism. Keep banging on about the tiny differences that still divide us, if you like. But I’m grateful for every olive-branch that’s out there.