Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[Helen]

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

Very well said!
The priesthood of all believers. All believers...
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.."

 

[Marymog]

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

If all believers are in the succession of the Apostles faith, as you seem to believe, then that means The Catholic teaching and doctrines are just as valid as yours and the Mormons and the Westboro Baptist Churches and Joe who started a church in his basement that teaches abortion is ok is just as valid as your beliefs and all the churches that teach same sex marriage is supported by scripture is just as valid as yours. Your opinion on this matter makes no sense. Can you see where your statement "All believers are in succession of the apostles faith" is not a valid statement and makes ZERO sense???

Who succeeded the Apostle Judas? I rest my case....;)

Scripture says Timothy succeeded Paul and the men Timothy taught men succeeded him and the men that succeeded those men were to teach what they were taught which was handed down from Paul....Apostolic Succession....I rest my case.... ;)

Your theory is not biblical nor historical and goes against all scripture and Christian teaching.

Mary

 

[Stranger]

If all believers are in the succession of the Apostles faith, as you seem to believe, then that means The Catholic teaching and doctrines are just as valid as yours and the Mormons and the Westboro Baptist Churches and Joe who started a church in his basement that teaches abortion is ok is just as valid as your beliefs and all the churches that teach same sex marriage is supported by scripture is just as valid as yours. Your opinion on this matter makes no sense. Can you see where your statement "All believers are in succession of the apostles faith" is not a valid statement and makes ZERO sense???

Who succeeded the Apostle Judas? I rest my case....;)

Scripture says Timothy succeeded Paul and the men Timothy taught men succeeded him and the men that succeeded those men were to teach what they were taught which was handed down from Paul....Apostolic Succession....I rest my case.... ;)

Your theory is not biblical nor historical and goes against all scripture and Christian teaching.

Mary

What silly statements you make. Because all believers are in succession of the apostles faith, then it is that faith as given us in Scripture that is valid. In other words, the Scripture is the basis for that faith. The Scripture is the basis for that doctrine. And validity comes as one is true to the Scripture.

No one succeeded Judas. Matthias replaced him.

Scripture doesn't say Timothy succeeded Paul. You and BreadOfLife and the Roman Church does. And Paul did not succeed any of the 12 apostles.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Very well said!
The priesthood of all believers. All believers...
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.."

Yes, we are all priests...of the Melchisedecian order. (Heb. 7:11-12, 7:21)

Stranger

 

[pia]

a royal priesthood, an holy nation

Thanks for that....A Bible confirmation of what Jesus showed me, that we are not to become Kings and Priests ( as it has been translated in Revelation), but rather a Kingdom of Priests. wonderful, thanks :)

 

[Marymog]

What silly statements you make. Because all believers are in succession of the apostles faith, then it is that faith as given us in Scripture that is valid. In other words, the Scripture is the basis for that faith. The Scripture is the basis for that doctrine. And validity comes as one is true to the Scripture.
Scripture doesn't say Timothy succeeded Paul. You and BreadOfLife and the Roman Church does. And Paul did not succeed any of the 12 apostles.
Stranger

Hi Stranger,

Thank you for your opinion.

I Got it NOW. Mathias "replaced" Judas....He didn't "succeed" him. Splitting hairs are we.

When they needed to "replace" Judas, Peter said, ‘Let another take his position of overseer (office)'! The Apostles voted/cast lots and Mathias succeeded him. One of the definitions of succeed is to take over a throne, inheritance, office, or other position from.

Replace and succeed are generally the same thing. Succeed is the most accurate word to use.

I should clarify that Timothy didn't succeed Paul in the same sense that Mathias succeeded Judas. Since Timothy was a student of Paul and Paul died 30 years after Timothy that means that Timothy succeeded Paul by 30 years and continued teaching all that Paul taught him. This succession from Paul to Timothy to the men that Timothy taught maintained continuity in the teachings of the Apostles or succession of teaching of the Apostles.

If, as you seem to think, all believers are in the succession of the Apostles faith then why do we all preach a different faith and have different doctrines? Did all the Apostles teach a different faith and different doctrines??

Mary

 

[Helen]

If, as you seem to think, all believers are in the succession of the Apostles faith then why do we all preach a different faith and have different doctrines? Did all the Apostles teach a different faith and different doctrines??

Mary

Hello Mary.
This made me laugh out loud. It is "almost your signature line. :)

In almost every discussion in any subject you always seem to end up here...asking the same old question.
You have asked it for months and months

We have all answered in our turn as to what 'we' each feel caused it.
As this is always you default question...and as obviously every answer we have each given does not satisfy you....maybe you should tell us why you believe there are so many different interpretations of scripture which has caused so many different denominations.
After so much much time, you must have your own opinion, you are not a novice in the scriptures or forums....what is your answer when you are asked this question?? :)

Many blessings...Helen

 

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger,

Thank you for your opinion.

I Got it NOW. Mathias "replaced" Judas....He didn't "succeed" him. Splitting hairs are we.

When they needed to "replace" Judas, Peter said, ‘Let another take his position of overseer (office)'! The Apostles voted/cast lots and Mathias succeeded him. One of the definitions of succeed is to take over a throne, inheritance, office, or other position from.

Replace and succeed are generally the same thing. Succeed is the most accurate word to use.

I should clarify that Timothy didn't succeed Paul in the same sense that Mathias succeeded Judas. Since Timothy was a student of Paul and Paul died 30 years after Timothy that means that Timothy succeeded Paul by 30 years and continued teaching all that Paul taught him. This succession from Paul to Timothy to the men that Timothy taught maintained continuity in the teachings of the Apostles or succession of teaching of the Apostles.

If, as you seem to think, all believers are in the succession of the Apostles faith then why do we all preach a different faith and have different doctrines? Did all the Apostles teach a different faith and different doctrines??

Mary

When Romanists use the word succession, they speak of a continual line going back to the original 12 to which they want to link their papal system. God wanted 12 apostles to have at the start of the Church. Just like He wanted 12 tribes of Israel. So it was necessary to 'replace' Judas. That in no way means that as these 12 die others fill their places. No continual sucession of the apostles.

So, it is not 'splitting hairs'. As I indicated earlier, James was killed by Herod and there was no effort to provide any replacement for him. (Acts 12:1-3) Rome uses the word succession to emphasize the 'authority' they supposedly have. The faith that is taught is secondary to them. Of course they will disagree just like they disagree with everything else that is wrong about them.

Timothy followed Paul in teaching the faith that had been passed down to him. Timothy in no way was an apostle as Paul was. Paul was not one of the 12 so there is no connection between Paul and the 12 and neither is there any apostolic connection between Timothy and Paul.

That the faith of the apostles is passed down, yes. We preach differently at times as we all are learning and trying to understand God and Christ and the Bible. Believers are found in different camps just like there were 12 tribes of Israel.

Stranger

 

[amadeus]

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).

You are too quick to lump together everyone not on what you see as your side. Actually, I agree that Jesus and His Church are inseparable. The Church is the Body and of course the Body and the Head will be always connected. The trouble is that being part of the Body of Christ requires more than belonging to the formal Catholic Church.

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.

You simply attack without knowing or remembering or caring what you have been told. You really need to develop a better line of communication with God.

I did not give up Catholicism for any kind of church. I back slid from God and walked effectively alone for 14 years. Then God witnessed to me through some non-Catholics and drew me back to Him. Then I began to walk with God as never I had know was possible before. It is hard to live for God easy; it is easy to live for God hard.

That is apparently outside of your experience. I will continue to pray for you.

Give God the glory always!

 

[Marymog]

Hello Mary.
This made me laugh out loud. It is "almost your signature line. :)

In almost every discussion in any subject you always seem to end up here...asking the same old question.
You have asked it for months and months

We have all answered in our turn as to what 'we' each feel caused it.
As this is always you default question...and as obviously every answer we have each given does not satisfy you....maybe you should tell us why you believe there are so many different interpretations of scripture which has caused so many different denominations.
After so much much time, you must have your own opinion, you are not a novice in the scriptures or forums....what is your answer when you are asked this question?? :)

Many blessings...Helen

Thank you BG for your interest in my opinion.

I will have to do some research and see where you all....as you allege..... have answered my question. I don't recall anyone really "answering" it and some didn't respond at all. I recall most saying they are right because they have the Holy Spirit guiding them. That's not an answer. That's just saying I am right. How do I know I am right? Because the Holy Spirit revealed it to me ;)

You seem to know that everyone else has answered me however I won't hold you accountable to reveal everyone else's answer to my question. However, would you please let me know once again your answer?

And just to make sure we are on the same page I would like to clarify this "question" you speak of.

I understand it to be: If Jesus taught the Apostles The Truth and the Apostles taught other men The Truth and all of our TRUTH is obtained via the Holy Spirit and scripture then why do we all have different doctrines? (when I say "we all" I mean Catholics, Baptist, Joe sitting in his basement with 12 other believers, Mormons, Methodist etc. etc)

Or another way to put it: Why did the Holy Spirit give the men of the Catholic Church a different Truth than the men of the Lutheran Church which is a different Truth than the men of the Methodist Church which is a different Truth of Joe sitting in his basement conducting bible study etc. etc.???? How can we all have the same Truth revealed to us but all our truths be different? Are we confused or is the Holy Spirit confused?

Is that it???? Is that what we are going to answer???:):):)

Looking forward to your response....Mary

PS....One member on this site actually told me that the Holy Spirit might tell me one thing one day and then tell me something different later on in life as I mature in my spirituality. I guess that member thinks the Holy Spirit is confused.

 

[Helen]

@Marymog I have to run to the doctors for a check up...will come back to this.
Sorry if I gave the impression that those who answered your question all said the same thing. As you know, none of us answer the same.
I should not speak so generally, I just have seen your question so many times in different threads...and I remember answering for myself...I don't remember others responses. I just remember seeing you ask it over...
Gotta run now...will return. Hope I can find it when I come back.
Bye....H

 

[Marymog]

When Romanists use the word succession, they speak of a continual line going back to the original 12 to which they want to link their papal system. God wanted 12 apostles to have at the start of the Church. Just like He wanted 12 tribes of Israel. So it was necessary to 'replace' Judas. That in no way means that as these 12 die others fill their places. No continual sucession of the apostles.

So, it is not 'splitting hairs'. As I indicated earlier, James was killed by Herod and there was no effort to provide any replacement for him. (Acts 12:1-3) Rome uses the word succession to emphasize the 'authority' they supposedly have. The faith that is taught is secondary to them. Of course they will disagree just like they disagree with everything else that is wrong about them.

Timothy followed Paul in teaching the faith that had been passed down to him. Timothy in no way was an apostle as Paul was. Paul was not one of the 12 so there is no connection between Paul and the 12 and neither is there any apostolic connection between Timothy and Paul.

That the faith of the apostles is passed down, yes. We preach differently at times as we all are learning and trying to understand God and Christ and the Bible. Believers are found in different camps just like there were 12 tribes of Israel.

Stranger

Hi stranger,

I don't think we are that far apart on our statements. I agree with you when Romanists (The Catholic Church) use the word succession they speak of a continual line going back to the original 12, in this case Peter, to which they link their papal system. Here is something to reflect on and consider: You can either accept the Historical writings about your Christian History or you can reject them. The ancient historical writings we Christians currently have make a good case for Apostolic Succession in Rome.

I also THINK I agree with you that there was no continual succession of the apostles; with some clarification. The Christian Church does not have 12 currently living men that we can say replaced the 12 Apostles via a vote like they did when Mathias succeeded Judas. However, as stated in my opening paragraph, the ancient historical writings we Christians have make a very good case for Apostolic Succession in Rome and you can either accept or reject the Historical writings about your Christian History. If you reject them the burden of proof is on you to prove they are wrong instead of just saying they are wrong.

I agree with you that Timothy in no way was an apostle as Paul was. I felt I made it VERY CLEAR that the succession from Paul to Timothy was that Timothy taught to other men what Paul taught him. That succession in teaching (Timothy succeeding Paul) maintained continuity in the teachings of the Apostles. Timothy was then to teach men to succeed him and teach them what he was taught by Paul. A uninterrupted succession of teaching from Paul to Timothy to the men he taught to other men is made very clear in Scripture.

The only thing that we are disagreeing on is that you say that the faith of the apostles is passed down but we preach differently at times. That statement is contradictory.

Since the Apostles preached THE SAME THING then how are we, 2,000 years later, "preaching differently at times"? Shouldn't we all be preaching the same thing; what the apostles preached? How did we all get our different truths from scripture when there is only One Truth?

If the faith of the Apostles was passed down from generation to generation for 2,000 years, like Paul passed to Timothy who passed it to other men who passed it to other men etc. etc. then we wouldn't be preaching differently, would we? We would all be preaching the same thing.

When did that succession of teaching stop? When did the "different" teaching begin and who has the authority to call it heretical?

Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

then we wouldn't be preaching differently, would we? We would all be preaching the same thing.

ha, amen; the only thing that has not changed since then is what a little kid understands, i guess

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are too quick to lump together everyone not on what you see as your side. Actually, I agree that Jesus and His Church are inseparable. The Church is the Body and of course the Body and the Head will be always connected. The trouble is that being part of the Body of Christ requires more than belonging to the formal Catholic Church.

You simply attack without knowing or remembering or caring what you have been told. You really need to develop a better line of communication with God.

I did not give up Catholicism for any kind of church. I back slid from God and walked effectively alone for 14 years. Then God witnessed to me through some non-Catholics and drew me back to Him. Then I began to walk with God as never I had know was possible before. It is hard to live for God easy; it is easy to live for God hard.

That is apparently outside of your experience. I will continue to pray for you.

Give God the glory always!

And all of this strikes me as a massive rationalization. "I didn't abandon Christ's Church - I found another way."

This is precisely why you make ludicrous statements like "When you come to love the truth above your church the delusion may be removed... "
There is NO such thing as loving the Truth "Above" Christ's Church.

Only a person who doesn't understand what the Church IS would make a statement like that.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

Wrong, Stranger.

There WAS a splintering of the Church at the Protestant Revolt. The splintering that happened after that was NOT withing the Church - but within Protestantism. This perpetual splintering continues . . .

As for doctrine - there is NO room for doctrinal differences. This is what Paul preached against in 1 Cor. 3:1-9.
The Catholic Church is the original Tree from which Protestantism splintered - and the inventions of mere men sprang up from this mess.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

Ummmm, according to the timeline YOU posted above - this is well within that time, sparky . . .

"Roman Catholic" is a derogatory term that we first hear in Henry VIII's England.

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

Good grief - can't you read??

First of all - at the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles present spoke with the Authority of Apostolic Succession.
Acts 15:24-26
We have heard that some went out from us WITHOUT OUR AUTHORIZATION and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They mentioned in a letter that that the Judaizers were NOT sent with their authorization (v. 24). They wrote that it is by the authorization of the Holy Spirit and them.

 

[BreadOfLife]

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.

Your ignorance of Scripture is ALMOST as astounding as your denial of the truth.

Tell me - WHO is Paul talking about here??
The Holy Spirit - or US??

1 Cor. 3:12-15
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, THE WORK OF EACH WILL COME TO LIGHT, for the Day* will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of EACH ONE'S WORK.
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, THAT PERSON will receive a wage.
But if someone’s work is burned up, THAT ONE will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

God prepares the works for US to do.
He sends the Holy Spirit to GUIDE us.
The choice to do these works is entirely up to US.

Matt. 23:37
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and YOU WERE NOT WILLING.

Keep studying and praying- you'll get there . . .

 

[amadeus]

And all of this strikes me as a massive rationalization. "I didn't abandon Christ's Church - I found another way."

This is precisely why you make ludicrous statements like "When you come to love the truth above your church the delusion may be removed... "
There is NO such thing as loving the Truth "Above" Christ's Church.

Only a person who doesn't understand what the Church IS would make a statement like that.

You have said it!

 

[Stranger]

Wrong, Stranger.

There WAS a splintering of the Church at the Protestant Revolt. The splintering that happened after that was NOT withing the Church - but within Protestantism. This perpetual splintering continues . . .

As for doctrine - there is NO room for doctrinal differences. This is what Paul preached against in 1 Cor. 3:1-9.
The Catholic Church is the original Tree from which Protestantism splintered - and the inventions of mere men sprang up from this mess.

Romanism has caused the splintering of the Church. Romes efforts to develop a Roman authority over all the Church is the reason for all splintering of various groups of believers. This splintering began in 1054 when the Eastern Church refused papal authority. Then some 500 years later, other Catholics splintered from the Roman Church due to the same rejection of papal authority.

Oh, so your are saying that there are no doctrinal differences in the Roman Church?

The Catholic Church is the original Tree. The Roman Church is an invasive plant causing the believers to separtate.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Ummmm, according to the timeline YOU posted above - this is well within that time, sparky . . .

"Roman Catholic" is a derogatory term that we first hear in Henry VIII's England.

Good grief - can't you read??

First of all - at the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles present spoke with the Authority of Apostolic Succession.
Acts 15:24-26
We have heard that some went out from us WITHOUT OUR AUTHORIZATION and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They mentioned in a letter that that the Judaizers were NOT sent with their authorization (v. 24). They wrote that it is by the authorization of the Holy Spirit and them.

1515 is before 1532. In other words, the Romanist identity as different than the Catholic identity, was understood, before Henry the VIII separated from the Roman rule. Thus you should not remain ignorant of the term 'Romanist', as you like to pretend to be.

Yes, Roman Catholic is always a derogatory term.

No apostolic succession is found in (Acts 15:24-36). Can't 'you' read? James was not an apostle. This is James the brother of Jesus Christ, not the James of the 12 disciples.

Please pay attention.

Stranger