Catholicism vs Protestantism

[Wansvic]

Early texts, even of apostolic times, show that baptism was with water and in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

"Regarding baptism, baptise thus. After giving the forgoing instructions, "Baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, baptise in any other..." Didache – (1st century AD)

And in the 2nd century
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (Justin Martyr First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Please provide a scripture depicting an actual water baptism that was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. You cannot. There are none.

And again, I express that Jesus said we will be judged by the word.

 

[Bede]

"Apostolic times" is a deceptive phrase that came out of Catholicism.

What is deceptive about it?

 

[Bede]

Please provide a scripture depicting an actual water baptism that was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. You cannot. There are none.

And again, I express that Jesus said we will be judged by the word.

Baptism "in the name of Jesus" was the name of the baptism that Jesus instructed the apostles to perform, not the words of the ritual. It was thus distinguished from John's baptism. Scripture nowhere gives us the actual words used in the baptism ceremony, but Jesus instructed the apostles to baptise "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). I believe the apostles would have done what Jesus instructed and the evidence from the early father shows that was how it was done.
The Didache is also known as The Teaching of The Twelve Apostles.

 

[Bede]

While that is true .Not all traditions make sola scriptura without effect. Just the kind of judgeable (damnable) heresy as personal or private interpretation of God's interpretation the bible, that do despite the grace of God .Of course catholisicim teaches that their own private interpretation as a law of the father is the standard.

That one that does despite to grace is judgeable as those who do need to hear the gospel of grace . .Catholicism clearly does despite to the grace of God given it over to a Queen .

They teach that only Mary received the fullness of grace in order to create a false authority of a Queen of heaven. A law of the catholic fathers. Catholiscim simply used the name Mary our sister in the lord to usurp the authroity of our Holy Father. Saying all others receive a unknow remnant of Grace and give no understand how long one must suffer for their own sin even after they are dead.

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

More unproven nonesense.

 

[Wansvic]

I think some of the misunderstandings come from "in the name of..."

in English, we sometimes say "stop in the name of the law".
we are not thinking of a particular name in that case,
nor do we think something important happens when we make the sound "law" with our mouths.

so given that, why not baptize in the name of Jesus and in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy Spirit?

I think if you look at the words said at the rite of baptism, that's what they do.
and most Protestant churches do the same thing.

The word of God expresses God's truth on every subject. Do a search and study out every occurrence of the word baptize, baptized, baptism, etc. and you will see the truth about how one is to be water baptized. Looking for something outside of the written word of God to justify one's tradition is not wise.

The truth found in the word is what all are to obey and will be judged by.

 

[Wansvic]

As I have pointed out several times not everything that Jesus spoke was written down.

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book"(John 20:30)
and
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

Scripture is not the totality of all that Jesus did and said. It never claims that is is, and John says it is not.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt 7:21

Where do you suppose the will of the Father is found?

 

[Dan_473]

While that is true .Not all traditions make sola scriptura without effect.

Well, do you use scripture and tradition, then?

 

[Bede]

Definition of tradition

1a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom)
b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable … the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet …— J. L. Esposito
2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4: characteristic manner, method, or style in the best liberal tradition

Tradition from Christian is ok, put pagan tradition into church is the problem

There can be confusion between Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition) written with a capital 'T' and tradition written with a small 't'. The latter is those customs and practices that grow up over time.

Sacred Tradition (capital 'T') are those revelations of God that were passed on orally and not written down and canonised as scripture. It is equal with Sacred Scripture as part of what Jesus and the apostles passed on to the Church.

Paul put Tradition and Scripture on an equal basis:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions [teaching NIV] which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]. (2Thess 2:15)

 

[Wansvic]

Baptism "in the name of Jesus" was the name of the baptism that Jesus instructed the apostles to perform, not the words of the ritual. It was thus distinguished from John's baptism. Scripture nowhere gives us the actual words used in the baptism ceremony, but Jesus instructed the apostles to baptise "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). I believe the apostles would have done what Jesus instructed and the evidence from the early father shows that was how it was done.
The Didache is also known as The Teaching of The Twelve Apostles.

The bible records the apostles performed water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 2:38, 8:12-17, 10:44-48, 19:2-6, 22:16) And, yes, they did what Jesus instructed, they used His singular name. In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col 2:9-12)

 

[Bede]

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt 7:21

Where do you suppose the will of the Father is found?

What is your opinion?

 

[Dan_473]

The word of God expresses God's truth on every subject. Do a search and study out every occurrence of the word baptize, baptized, baptism, etc. and you will see the truth about how one is to be water baptized. Looking for something outside of the written word of God to justify one's tradition is not wise.

The truth found in the word is what all are to obey and will be judged by.

I have done that in the past.

if I remember right, in every instance where a location for the baptism is given, the baptism is done outdoors and in running (or "living") water, like a river or a stream.

the people that you fellowship with on Sunday, do they baptize that way?

 

[Dan_473]

The word of God expresses God's truth on every subject.

I certainly wouldn't dispute that, especially since the Bible contains verses like this one

Seek his will in all you do, and he will show you which path to take.
https://biblehub.com/proverbs/3-6.htm

but I think it's interesting that Bible passages on subjects like slavery, which the Bible supports (slaves obey your masters) are not seen as part of God's truth by Christians today,
both Catholic and Protestant.

 

[Wansvic]

There can be confusion between Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition) written with a capital 'T' and tradition written with a small 't'. The latter is those customs and practices that grow up over time.

Sacred Tradition (capital 'T') are those revelations of God that were passed on orally and not written down and canonised as scripture. It is equal with Sacred Scripture as part of what Jesus and the apostles passed on to the Church.

Paul put Tradition and Scripture on an equal basis:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions [teaching NIV] which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]. (2Thess 2:15)

This comes directly from the catholic belief system.

One

There can be confusion between Sacred Tradition (or just Tradition) written with a capital 'T' and tradition written with a small 't'. The latter is those customs and practices that grow up over time.

Sacred Tradition (capital 'T') are those revelations of God that were passed on orally and not written down and canonised as scripture. It is equal with Sacred Scripture as part of what Jesus and the apostles passed on to the Church.

Paul put Tradition and Scripture on an equal basis:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions [teaching NIV] which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth [Tradition] or by letter [Scripture]. (2Thess 2:15)

There is true apostolic instruction. (tradition) But beware of uninspired tradition of men. There is always a counterfeit of Godly truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Traditions - instructions delivered, whether orally or in writing (2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2, margin, 'traditions'). The verb is used by Paul, 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3. From the three passages in which 'tradition' has a good sense, Rome has argued for her uninspired traditions, visually overriding, while held as of co-ordinate authority with, God's Word. She forgets the ten passages (Matt 15:2-3,6; Mark 7:3,5,8-9,13; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8) stigmatizing man's uninspired traditions. [
Paradosis is one of the only two nouns in the 2,000 of the Greek Testament which numerically equals 666, the mark of the beast, Rev 13:18.] Tradition is the great corrupter of doctrine, as [euporia] 'wealth' (the other equivalent of 666) is the corrupter of the Church's practice.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

[garee]

Well, do you use scripture and tradition, then?

I do, as long as the oral traditions do not make the grace of Christ without effect. Jesus replied that when Peter went to town with one. Jesus said if every time he worked to correct that kind of error (oral tradition) was written down that we would need a bigger earth to store it. One example .I think would be enough. Yet Catholicism turns that upside down making the grace of Christ without effect .Giving it to their imaginary Queen.

John 21: 23-25 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Wansvic]

What is your opinion?

Interesting how you refuse to answer. You answer a question with a question.

Again, Jesus said only those who do the will of the Father will enter heaven. Where does one find the will of the Father outside of the word of God?

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt 7:21

Where do you suppose the will of the Father is found?

 

[Bede]

The bible records the apostles performed water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 2:38, 8:12-17, 10:44-48, 19:2-6, 22:16) And, yes, they did what Jesus instructed, they used His singular name. In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col 2:9-12)

None of the first four describe the actual baptism. They all refer to the name of the baptism not the words of the ceremony.
The last one is not even in the same ball park. Calling on Jesus' name is something the one being baptised does, not the words spoken by the baptiser.
Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Rom 10:13)
Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ (Acts 2;21)

Note also Acts 2:38, 10:44 says " in the name of Jesus Christ", whilst Acts 8:16, 19:5 "says in the name of the Lord Jesus". If it was a baptismal formula you would expect consistency.
Also note the contrast in Acts 19 between "John’s baptism" and baptism"in the name of the Lord Jesus "

 

[Wansvic]

I have done that in the past.

if I remember right, in every instance where a location for the baptism is given, the baptism is done outdoors and in running (or "living") water, like a river or a stream.

the people that you fellowship with on Sunday, do they baptize that way?

The comment was in reference to using the phrase, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost while administering water baptism. Or, does scripture use the name of the Lord Jesus consistently?

 

[garee]

More unproven nonesense.

LOL Unproven as a law of your fathers? The Sacred Devine private interpretation?

 

[Bede]

Interesting how you refuse to answer. You answer a question with a question.

Again, Jesus said only those who do the will of the Father will enter heaven. Where does one find the will of the Father outside of the word of God?

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt 7:21

Where do you suppose the will of the Father is found?

The will of the Father is found in ALL that Jesus and the apostles passed on - Scripture and Tradition (see post 2508)

 

[Dan_473]

lot of time is spent talking about water baptism.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.