Calling on all Protestants on this forum!

[Ozzie]

dennisknapp:

I am imploring, begging, beseeching any Protestant to provide positive evidence for their beliefs that are not shared in common with historical Christianity.
Please provide evidence for:
Communion is only symbolic; not salvific.
That baptism is only symbolic; not salvific.
Marian doctrine is a late innovation of the Roman Catholic Church.
That Apostolic Succession was not taught in the early Church.

What a preposterous thread! What a farcical question! If the ambition of the Reformation was to get the western church back to a more Biblical faith, i.e., based on N.T. revelation and not the historical, extrabiblical traditions of men, then the appeal must be to the N.T. Scriptures for proof, not church history.

The issues regarding Communion (the Eucharist), baptism and salvation can be examined and argued Scripturally. But Marian doctrines, Apostolic succession and an infallible “Magisterium” can not. They were dropped because there is absolutely no Scriptural support for them. They are opinions of men, not doctrines found in God’s written Word. It wouldn’t matter if every so-called church father, bishop, pope, patriarch or monarch believed Mary was immaculately conceived, that belief would still be based on nothing more than man’s opinion. True Christianity is not based on opinion but divine revelation.

Actually, it’s you who need to test the doctrines that come out of Rome by the written Word of God. But that would require work on your part, wouldn’t it?

 

[Neithan]

Ozzie you describe perfectly the horribly mutated offspring of Luther’s “sola Scriptura” and the Fundamentalist movement.

Where is your faith? Where is the Holy Spirit? Where is Christ, the Living Word?

The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity
…]
For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one’s own light is not faith (“Protestantism,” Catholic Encyclopaedia).

To deny the authority of Tradition is to obliterate the meaning of Scripture.

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

What a preposterous thread! What a farcical question! If the ambition of the Reformation was to get the western church back to a more Biblical faith, i.e., based on N.T. revelation and not the historical, extrabiblical traditions of men, then the appeal must be to the N.T. Scriptures for proof, not church history.

The issues regarding Communion (the Eucharist), baptism and salvation can be examined and argued Scripturally. But Marian doctrines, Apostolic succession and an infallible “Magisterium” can not. They were dropped because there is absolutely no Scriptural support for them. They are opinions of men, not doctrines found in God’s written Word. It wouldn’t matter if every so-called church father, bishop, pope, patriarch or monarch believed Mary was immaculately conceived, that belief would still be based on nothing more than man’s opinion. True Christianity is not based on opinion but divine revelation.

Actually, it’s you who need to test the doctrines that come out of Rome by the written Word of God. But that would require work on your part, wouldn’t it?

Ozzie,
I had no idea that my thread was a farce or laughably inept.

Wow, you are right! What am I doing? How dare I seek evidence. How preposterous of me to try a bring to light historical fact.

I have a question for you. If the Reformation " was to get the western church back to a more Biblical faith, i.e., based on N.T. revelation and not the historical, extrabiblical traditions of men" then shouldn’t there be evidence for this “Biblical faith” somewhere in history besides the minds of said Reformers?

I mean, there is plenty of evidence for this “Biblical faith” in history after the Reformation, or should we not trust that either?

Where is this “Biblical faith” prior to the Reformation?

 

[SirShaun]

dennisknapp:

Here are some sources that contradict what you just posted, even Augustine is used.

All of these deal with Baptism, of which, I already agree with you. You didn’t seem to get that before. I’ll state it a little more clearly. Neither I, nor my wife, have been put out, or turned off, or in any way scandalized by the Roman Catholic teachings regarding Baptism. That is not the teaching that keeps us out of your church. Like Augustine, I believe that, baring outside forces which prevent him, a follower of Christ must be baptized. And the only disagreement I have with you in regards to Apostolic succession is that I don’t think it’s as easily lost as your church does.

Now, find the same kind of quotes for me stating that the bread is no longer bread, or that the Bishop of Rome is infallible, or that Mary was without original sin, and then you’ll have addressed my concerns. The majority of protestant denominations also hold those three things.

Your complaints about Baptism and Apostolic succession are valid, but none of my concern. (Although, if you found a source indicating that such succession was as easily lost as what your church teaches, I’d want to read it and see who’s saying, and who to, etc. Like I said in a previous post, I don’t think any of those sources will be infallible, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be convincing.)

Also, I’d like to point out that you used the same quotes from Augustine that I did. Maybe you just don’t understand what my wife’s church teaches on Baptism? They do believe that it is a commandment, and that not being baptized is the same as saying you don’t believe the New Testament, putting your salvation in danger. I’ve never heard a Baptist teacher once say it was okay to not be Baptized (other than one time in the Baptism class I attended, the teacher did say that if you were in prison in a Muslim country, and you came to the faith, and there was no one to Baptize you, and you were mauled to death by dogs before your release, then that would probably be okay. But I can see how those would be extraordinary circumstances.)

And, more important than any of this, since I probobly won’t be back on durring the holiday, Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[dennisknapp]

SirShaun,

As you requested, the Fathers on the Eucharist:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

 

[dennisknapp]

Cont.

Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” (Fragment from *Commentary on Proverbs *[A.D. 217]).

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (*Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (*The Lapsed *15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters , whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).*

 

[dennisknapp]

Cont.

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (*Catechetical Lectures *19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (*The Mysteries *9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (*Catechetical Homilies *5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (*Explanations of the Psalms *33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (*Sermons *227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, *Letter of Cyril to Nestorius *[A.D. 431]).

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

SPOKENWORD:

I believe that the bible is Gods inspired Word and is sufficient for me.History is recorded in the Bible. God Bless.

But if you believe the Bible it also says not everything about Jesus is written in the Bible.God Bless and come HOME

 

[All4lifetoo]

Ozzie:

What a preposterous thread! What a farcical question! If the ambition of the Reformation was to get the western church back to a more Biblical faith, i.e., based on N.T. revelation and not the historical, extrabiblical traditions of men, then the appeal must be to the N.T. Scriptures for proof, not church history.

. . .]

The formation and acceptance and interpretation of Scripture is a historical event. To attempt to study Scripture in a historical vacuum is an attempt in folly. It is an attempt to bury one’s head in the sand and to ignore the context in which Scripture was compiled and handed on to us.

 

[Xavier]

dennisknapp:

What does this mean? Paul’s letter to the Corinthians? I don’t get it?

I posted a resource for you to look into regarding how early Christians worshipped. I feel it would give you some insight.

I posted an inerrant word of God reference which discribes an orderly and disorderly service which does not resemble a Catholic mass. You wish me to disregard this?

 

[Ozzie]

dennisknapp:

Ozzie,
I had no idea that my thread was a farce or laughably inept.

Well, now you know.

Wow, you are right! What am I doing? How dare I seek evidence. How preposterous of me to try a bring to light historical fact.

What historical fact have you brought to light?

I have a question for you. If the Reformation " was to get the western church back to a more Biblical faith, i.e., based on N.T. revelation and not the historical, extrabiblical traditions of men" then shouldn’t there be evidence for this “Biblical faith” somewhere in history besides the minds of said Reformers?

Yes there is. That which existed in the minds of the Apostles and the N.T. prophets and which was permanently written down in Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures (Jn. 14:25-26; Eph. 2:20-22; 3:4-5). And this before any Pope or Roman prelate existed. There is nothing better than going back to the original source, my friend. You cannot “come home” until you come back to the written Word of God. You wanted historical proof? Crack open your Bible. The Church is to be the “pillar and support” of that divine truth, not make up its own, or worse, call itself the truth. For then it would be no better than your run-of-the-mill cult (Col. 2:18-19).

 

[SirShaun]

dennisknapp:

Cyril of Jerusalem

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

This is the only one of your quotes which begins to address my concerns. I specifically said that I do not object to the idea of it becomming Christ’s flesh and blood, but only that I do not see it as also ceasing to be bread and wine.

But, earlier in the same lecture, he also says, “Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.”

In the previous lecture, he says it is the same as something he says is completely symbolic, “But beware of supposing this to be plait ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist… is mere bread no longer, but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment… Which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit,” going further than I would.

Taken as a whole, I don’t think he means it to be taken symbolically, but since he uses extreems in both directions to make a point, I think his view is more moderate. Like mine. At the very least, it is obvious that he does not think it is purely flesh (or perhaps not human flesh), otherwise he would not have scoffed the deserters of Christ, who supposed Christ to have commanded them to eat flesh. (Though, I won’t show these works to some I’ve been arguing for a more literal interpretation of Communion with… they’d have a day with a Church father who was this wishy washy on the subjet.)

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Lisa4Catholics:

But if you believe the Bible it also says not everything about Jesus is written in the Bible.God Bless and come HOME

Hi Lisa,BUT I am home,right into His arms. Glod Bless and Merry Christmas.

 

[Ozzie]

dennisknapp:

As you requested, the Fathers on the Eucharist

Yet none are Apostles, the foundation on which Christ is building His Church (Eph. 2:20). And none of their writings Holy Spirit inspired, hence susceptible to the errors of their day (see Apostolic warnings: Acts 20:29; 2 Pet. 2:1).

 

[dennisknapp]

Xavier:

I posted an inerrant word of God reference which discribes an orderly and disorderly service which does not resemble a Catholic mass. You wish me to disregard this?

I don’t wish you to disregard anything. Just giving you a resource to look into, that’s all.

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

Well, now you know.What historical fact have you brought to light?Yes there is. That which existed in the minds of the Apostles and the N.T. prophets and which was permanently written down in Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures (Jn. 14:25-26; Eph. 2:20-22; 3:4-5). And this before any Pope or Roman prelate existed. There is nothing better than going back to the original source, my friend. You cannot “come home” until you come back to the written Word of God. You wanted historical proof? Crack open your Bible. The Church is to be the “pillar and support” of that divine truth, not make up its own, or worse, call itself the truth. For then it would be no better than your run-of-the-mill cult (Col. 2:18-19).

These are all nice assertions based on your presuppositions, but that is all.

Where is your proof? You say “scripture,” well I can claim that as well.

Why should I or anyone else believe what you say? Because you say it? How preposterous. How farcical.

When given the choice between the historical Church which Christ established and some “Lone Ranger.” I choose the Church.

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

These are great references and I would agree. But they are in accordance with what has been held by the historical Church. What I am asking is for evidence of your belief that do not agree with the historical Church, in early Church history.

If I understand what you’re trying to say, the question deals with these issues. My quick responses from my own Methodist/Anglican tradition.

Communion is only symbolic; not salvific. That would not be a belief we embrace. We embrace Real Presence, and the early days of Methodist saw Communion/Eucharist as necessary for the soul as a means of grace. Neglecting it was to “starve” one’s soul.

That baptism is only symbolic; not salvific. The Articles of Religion of both Anglicanism and Methodist are virtually the same; baptism is both regenerational and the washing away of original sin. It is also a sacrament/means of grace.

Marian doctrine is a late innovation of the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t think you’d find a Methodist to disagree with that. However, very few Methodists practice Marian devotion. Having said that, John Wesley said the rosary every day.

That Apostolic Succession was not taught in the early Church. I don’t think you’d find a Methodist to disagree with that, either. But “proving” that Apostolic Succession has never been broken (i.e., the Alexandrian precedent) might be hard.

You may be trying to pigeonhole all Protestants into the same corner; plus, the dissention/protesting line of Methodism and Anglicanism runs from an altogether different line than Luther or Calvin.

Pax,

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

One other thing… speaking as one who studied liturgics and sacramental theology, “symbolic” is not that bad a word when it comes to the sacraments. Sacraments point to that which they re-present: Christ, Christ’s presence, Christ’s saving power and grace.

Where eucharist is concerned, a better word in the 21st century for transubstantiation (barring a lecture on Thomism and the Aristotle rationalism/substance/accidents show) might be the word Catholic scholar Edward Schillebeeckx coined: transsignification. Sign and symbol are not bad words; it’s when we say something is JUST a sign or JUST symbolic. That’s when the words becoming limiting of the sacrament.

Trying telling the cop that the stop sign you just ran is “just symbolic” of the law - and see if it gets you out of the ticket.

The bread and wine on the table become the body and blood of Christ. They are ALSO symbols of Christ. It’s both/and, not either or. And that logic makes perfect sense using Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy - the basis of transubstantiation.

O+

 

[Ozzie]

dennisknapp:

These are all nice assertions based on your presuppositions, but that is all. Where is your proof? You say “scripture,” well I can claim that as well.

Not for the extrabiblical doctrines to which you hold. I’ve asserted nothing - do you not believe the Scriptures are the written Word of God? It is you who assert that “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) must have a *“paper trail” *in post-Apostolic history. My contention is that it does not, but that various post-apostolic doctrines and “traditions” taught and espoused by Christian schoolmen and clergy must be tested and examined by the immutable, written Word that God has provided us through the Apostles and Divinely inspired writers. The written Word of God itself testifies that false teachers, hence false doctrines, will come from within the Church (2 Pet. 2:1). For this reason your appeal to the “Protestant” to provide historical evidence for his faith, rather than the Divinely inspired Scriptures only, is perfidious, to say the least. Rome understands this very well and for this reason vehemently disputes the Scriptures as the one true source for the true Christian faith. The foundation of immutable, Divine revelation is what separates true Christianity from all other “religions” on this earth (Jer. 1:12).

“Coming home” to the Scriptures is not such a novel idea, contrary to what you’re told by Rome’s apologists. The Scribes and Pharisees added many of their own traditions to the Law once delivered to them by Moses. Judaism in Christ’s day was very different from the Judaism of Moses’ day because of the many traditions added to it by men. And Jesus rebuked them for it (see Mark 7:5-23). When Christ taught His Apostles the truth concerning Him after His bodily resurrection, He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, not their “traditions” (Luke 24:44-49; cf. vs. 27, 32).

Essentially, Christ guided the Apostles “home” to God’s immutable Word as the source of truth. It should be no different for you.

When given the choice between the historical Church which Christ established and some “Lone Ranger.” I choose the Church.

You may choose whatever you wish, but I never told you to follow me. But don’t be fooled by the “broad road” (Matt. 7:13) or think there’s safety in numbers. Remember, of all those on the earth only eight entered the ark, and out of all of Israel Jesus chose only 12, and even one of them was a devil.

 

[jwehlitz]

Hello,

I’m adding my 2 cents worth to this thread rather late in the discussion, but there are a few things I have a serious urge to point out.

Since this is my first post to the Catholic Answers forum I’ll start my mentioning where I’m coming from. I was raised in the Baptist church, but became an Episcopalian (Anglican) about 25 years ago. I’m now looking at the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church with great interest due the the un-Christian directions in which the Episcopal Church is moving.

Dennis; Threads seldom stay precisely on topic, you start it but like all conversations it takes unforseen directions of its own. Also, you’re not going to get good defenses of modern protestant positions from the history of the early Church, because there aren’t any.

To the Sola Scriptura protestants, how can you place so much importance on Scripture while putting down the writings and opinions of the people who determined the canon of Scripture?

As someone who was raised in the Baptist church, I was very surprised to hear a Baptist sound like he was claiming that his denomination believes in the Real Presence, and apostolic succession. Back in my day (??!!!) I was taught, in the Baptist church, that communion was entirely symbolic. As to apostolic succession; how can a church that doesn’t have Bishops talk about apostolic succession?

A Lutheran also mentioned that Lutherans believe in apostolic succession. I don’t see how that can be, since when the Episcopal and Lutheran churches were discussing the Concordat of Agreement prior to its adoption by both denominations, many Lutherans objected to the Concordat due to the fact that under the it’s provisions the Lutherans will, over time, regain the apostolic succession (assuming that the Episcopal succession is valid, which is not certain), and they felt strongly that apostolic succession was not necessary.

A Lutheran also said that he believed that the Lutheran Church and Catholic Church will unite during his lifetime. That seems just an unlikely as the Episcopal Church will unite with the Catholic Church. Both the Lutherans and Episcopalians have women clergy. Either one would have to renounce their women clergy before there would be any chance of union with Rome.

I’m not saying that Baptists, Lutherans and Anglicans aren’t Christians, but we’re probably wrong about a lot of doctrines.

jwehlitz