Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Did the Catholic Church change the way Christians baptize? Shouldn't we baptize "in Jesus' name" only?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,
         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37


This coming Sunday's first reading from Acts of the Apostles contains a verse that has led to the separation of another Christian group (one of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.)

Then Peter responded,
"Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people,
who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?"
He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.


There is a Christian denomination, the Oneness Pentecostals, which has separated itself based on this very text (plus 3 others) which appears to be proclaiming that baptism be done in Jesus' name.  They believe, based on this text, that we ought to be baptizing NOT using the Trinitarian formula, ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), but "in the name of Jesus" ONLY.  They maintain that the Trinitarian baptism is a "tradition of men" that has been condemned by the Scriptures.

It is of such dire import to them that they started their own sect in the early 20th century because they felt that the rest of Christendom was contradicting the Word of God by baptizing using the Trinitarian formula (among some other doctrinal issues concerning their understanding of salvation and their understanding of the Trinity.)  And this movement is no small matter, claiming over 24 million adherents.

The short answer to the above question, is:  no, the Catholic Church did not change the way we baptize; we baptize the way Jesus commanded us to baptize in Matthew 28:19:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Catholics have been baptizing using the Trinitarian formula from the earliest days.  There is a document of early Christian practices from about 50 AD called the DIDACHE (pronounced did-a-kay) that details how the early Christians baptized:

"In regard to baptism - baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm."

So why does this verse in Acts say we should be baptizing in Jesus' name and not in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? It is made to offer a distinction from other baptisms that were occurring during the earliest days of Christianity.  There were the baptisms done by followers of John the Baptist, baptisms done in Jewish liturgies, and baptisms done in pagan rituals.  By proclaiming baptisms be done "in the name of Jesus Christ", the inspired author of Acts was merely attempting to disassociate ourselves from the baptisms done by other sects.  It was not an instruction on how to baptize.

It is the Church that offers the authentic interpretation of the Scriptures.  Without an authentic interpreter of God's Word, what occurs is the chaos and confusion of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that they have rightly interpreted Verse and the rest of Christianity has simply missed the mark on Verse .  This, clearly, is the work of the Great Deceiver, and not the will of Christ who prayed that "we might be one" as He and the Father are one.

Since becoming passionate about apologetics many years ago I have encountered some, frankly, weirder and weirder interpretations of the Bible--here's one that I just recently heard:  stairs to altars are condemned in Scripture.  Go figure.   This only serves to confirm this point:  we need someone to tell us what the Bible means.**

Without a guide to open the Scriptures to us (as Jesus did to those on the walk to Emmaus in Luke 24:32), we are left to our own destruction and "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning and by craftiness in deceitful schemes"--Ephesians 4:14.  In fact, our first pope, in his first "encyclical" tells us that "there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures." 2 Peter 3:16

**Now, of course, Catholics are free to read the Scriptures without an authority telling us what it means to us personally. That is, if we are in a fight with our honey (hypothetically speaking ) and we open the Bible up to Psalm 45:3 which proclaims, "You are the most handsome of men" we are certainly free to interpret this to mean that we need to make up with our handsome, hunky husband.  But we are never free to interpret it contrary to what the Church has proclaimed.  And thus we would never been free to interpret Psalm 45:3 as permission, say, to commit adultery.  But of course we Catholics can read the Bible (and in fact are obligated to read the Scriptures) and apply them to our own faith journeys in personal ways. 

(Note:  The Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of all Christians baptized in other denominations, provided that the baptism was done using water and the Trinitarian formula.  Thus, people who wish to enter the Catholic Church but were baptized "in Jesus name" alone must be "re-baptized".)



Catholics Come Home
 
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

153 comments:

  1. Great post. I've been looking through your blog. I love your sound reason and clear explanations. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/name.htm
    Hi below is posting from above site. It claims that early Catholic church baptised in Jesus name only and list catholic references ??? Please help me to be able to explain same to my husband who is UPC and says the same thing?

    Finally, I would like to demonstrate where history shows us that the Catholic Church changed the way that people were baptized. From there on people continued to follow this tradition, probably because it fit so well with their Trinitarian doctrine:

    BRITANICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

    The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the Second Century. – 11th Edit., Vol. 3, ppg. 365-366.

    CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

    The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of the Trinity Doctrine in the Second Century.

    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

    Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. – Vol. 2, pg. 263.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, I read the Catholic encyclopedia reference and it does not say anything at all about the Church at one time baptizing in Jesus' name only and then changing to the Trinitarian formula, so that reference can be removed.

      Secondly, any reference that does not come from the Catholic Church should be judged with a healthy skepticism. I do not think that they provide scholarly and valid evidence that the Church changed the way she baptized.

      Thirdly, here is evidence from a 1st century Christian text that does in deed declare that Christians were to be baptized in the Trinitarian formula:

      "After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]). http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

      Delete
  3. Thank you for that! Its sad that these references are actually on a UPC org site and this is what they are being fed. I tried to go looking up the Catholic Encyclopedia but could not find that page LOL thank you again. God Bless you and your work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is false.

      I'm pretty sure you don't have a 1917 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

      What you do have is the internet, which is where you probably read it.

      So maybe if you post the link we could all see what you're referencing?

      Delete
  4. if Jesus said baptize the IN THE name of the father, son and Holyghost, where is the name? The father, son, and Holyghost are titles or offices. The angel told Mary "Ye shall call his name JESUS" (Matthew 1:21) not son. I'm somebody's daughter, sister, and granddaughter...but that is not my name. If Peter preached Jesus name he obeyed the commandment of the Lord. The scripture declares after Jesus rose he taught the apostles the things pertaining to the kingdom. JESUS is the name HEAVEN recognizes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In the name" is an idiom. Similar to "stop in the name of the law".

      In other words, the law does not have to have a name. We would laugh if the perpetrator said, "Well, what is the law's name?", right?

      Delete
    2. I can only agree with any one who is following the scripture and baptizing in Jesus name. The scripture also says in the book of Acts chapter 4 verse 12, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." And in the book of Acts chapter 2 verse 38 Peter gives the name Jesus was talking about in Matt 28:19. Which is "Then Peter said unto to them, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." And when you read the book of John chapter 5 verse 43 you can hear Jesus say "I am come in my Father's name" so here we can see the name of the Father is Jesus. Now when we read the book of John chapter 14 verse 26 we get the name of the Holy Ghost and the scripture says "But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" and we know the name of the Son is Jesus. So now you know the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is Jesus. The Catholic s and there Trinitarian formula are wrong and up hold tradition of men rather than that of God. And my name is Ernie so you know who wrote and said this.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comments, Ernie. I don't disagree with you that we are saved by Jesus. Amen to that! However, Jesus' name can't save us any more than a book can save us. We are saved by a Person. Not a name.

      Delete
    4. For any man to say the name of Jesus can't save us. When the bible tells us in the book of Acts 4:12 that we are save by Jesus name. I have to then question his belief in God. And in his name shall the gentiles trust. So how can tou say a name can't save us? I even wrote the scripture out for you in what I wrote earlier.

      Delete
    5. Well, if you mean, literally, a "name" can save us, then that is nothing more than idolatry. That's Name-liolatry. Just like believing that a book can save us. That's called Bibliolatry.

      However, if you are using "name" to mean a metaphor, and a reference to a Person, and this Person saves you, then you are being very Catholic when you say this. *thumbs up!*

      Delete
    6. I'm with Ernie on this all the way. Let's face it, Catholics don't even read from the original King James bible, but there own made up version of the bible and still believe they should confess their sins to a priest instead of going directly to God, so I can not put my trust in their teachings regarding Jesus baptism nor anything else they teach.

      Delete
    7. mitchell, where does the Bible say that we are supposed to read from the King James Bible?

      As such, you are advocating a man-made tradition!

      The Apostles and the inspired writers never once said that the King James version is the correct translation of the Bible.

      Delete
    8. Actually the name "God" "Father" and/or "Son" is not necessarily a title;it can be used as a name depending upon the context. Biblical Example: Isaiah 9:6 says. "...his name shall be called...Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father..."
      Therefore, we conclude that the above names are not just titles.

      Delete
    9. SOLDIER OF CHRISTJune 6, 2016 at 10:47 AM

      JESUS IS THE NAME His name... Jesus.... is called wonderful mighty God counselor etc
      Satan knows the saving power of JESUS and has sought to keep men from using His name. There is no other name for our salvation Acts 4:12 ALL the fullness of the God head is in HIM bodily Colossians 2:9 He is not one of the Godhead... the God head is IN HIM according to scripture. If you say IN THE NAME OF means IN THE AUTHORITY OF consider WHO HAS ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH Matthew 28:18 I was christened a catholic infant. I have read on Catholic sites the steps given in the way early days for baptism. One said you have to fast 3 days.... another place said you have to repeat some words after the baptizer.... HOW DID AN INFANT DO ANY OF THIS ? Many contradictions. Sorry, but true. Besides, if Peter is considered the first pope in the catholic church.... should we not obey the words he spoke Acts 2:37-39... he said in the name of Jesus Christ... he was specific.... and the Lord endorsed his message.... Acts 2:47 by adding to the church daily those to be saved. Be in any church you want to.... I am in the church THE LORD endorsed and added to. JESUS IS THE NAME ABOVE ALL NAMES ... GOD IS THE WORD AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH.... THAT IS ONLY JESUS.... I am in agreement Father, Son, Holy Ghost are descriptive titles and any religion could claim their "god" is the same. But JESUS is the name that makes us CHRISTIANS. There is TOO MUCH bible to back that up.... We pray in His name, we baptize in His name, we do all of our words and deeds in His name. HE GAVE US THE NAME.... WHY WOULD YOU NOT USE IT. I use my name on receipts, at the bank, when signing legal binding agreements. WHY ARE SO CALLED CHRISTIANS AFRAID TO USE THE NAME. ALL OF THE GOD HEAD IS IN HIM. JESUS... AND TO THAT NAME BE ALL GLORY HONOR AND PRAISE. JESUS IS COMING BACK FOR HIS CHURCH... HIS BRIDE... BRIDES TAKE ON A NEW NAME.... WIFE, SPOUSE, BRIDE, BELOVED, PARTNER ARE NOT NAMES ... JESUS IS THE NAME.

      Delete
    10. Thanks for your comments, Soldier of Christ.

      Regarding fasting: that could certainly be done by the parents who wished for baptism to be done for their infants. And repetition could be done by the godparents.

      Regarding Peter's words in Acts 2: Catholics do this, Soldier of Christ. We baptize IN THE NAME OF the Father, AND OF THE SON, and of the Holy Spirit. (The "of the son" means: Jesus Christ).

      Delete
    11. Everything else above you say is very Catholic, Soldier of Christ!

      Delete
  5. Has anyone ever read the whole book of acts? Colossians 3:16 or 17 says " in word or DEED do ALL in the NAME JESUS CHRIST". Baptism is a deed, said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In the name of" means "in, or by, the authority of." It doesn't mean we must verbally speak the name "Jesus" in all that we do.

      Delete
    2. This is correct. We are not commanded to verbally speak the name "Jesus" in all that we do. That is neither in Scripture NOR Tradition.

      Delete
  6. "It is the Church that offers the authentic interpretation of the Scriptures."
    This is a non-sense. It is GOD (the author) that offers the authentic interpretation of the Scriptures!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment.

      Of course, God is the author that offers the authentic interpretation of the Scriptures.

      However, there is no need to make a dichotomy. God is the authentic interpreter of the Scriptures...but since He does not appear to the world anymore, we cannot know what He is thinking.

      And that is why we have the Catholic Church, God's servant here on earth.

      It is the Catholic Both/And here at work.

      It is like someone saying to their child, "We are your parents!" and the child responding, "NO! God is my parent!"

      The parents respond, "Of course. It is God who is your Father, but that doesn't mean that we aren't your parents as well! It is Both/And!"

      Delete
  7. The record recorded by the apostles never mention any baptism , being perform other than in JESUS' name. Period!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus commands his Apostles in Matthew to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Charlotte.

      Delete
  8. I have been baptized in Jesus name and know people experiencing the presence and move of God in their lives in Biblical ways - ways the Bible says marks a disciple of Christ - who have NOT been baptized in Jesus name. I've come to the conclusion that I know what I'd prefer to adhere to and expound to my children and others around me according to Scripture. That being said, I'm comfortable with God's sovereignty in all of this. I have no doubt that people baptized in the name of Jesus as well as people baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost(or Spirit depending on your tradition) will be in heaven. You know why? Because they are the same God. When baptism is down in the "titles" it is referring to the Godhead which is in Jesus Christ in its fullness bodily(Col 2:9). As those who desire to follow Christ we take up arms AGAINST each other faaaaar before we try to live in unity the way Christ desired and prayed for (John 17). Thank you for the Catholic perspective on this question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments.

      I agree with you that God can save whom He wishes, and that living in unity is the way Christ desired...

      however, truth matters.

      And there are those who, sadly, will not be saved because they rejected the truth.

      Delete
  9. I hate to burst your bubble but my church was started on the day of Pentecost in an upper room where the Spirit of God came in and filled all that were gathered there with the comforter, the Holy Ghost as he said he would. Then they were all baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. We have NEVER strayed from that initial doctrine. The Catholic tried to shut us down by killing and torturing millions of heritics or heathen as we were called because we would not accept the trinity. The Catholic church tried but we prevailed thru the dark ages to come out stronger than ever before. We were here for the outpouring of the Latter Rain and I think that is what you are referring to when you say our Oneness movement started in the 20th century. Our churches are filling up with former Catholics that are coming into the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Elaine.

      It is good to discuss differing theologies.

      Where we agree: your church is indeed being filled with former Catholics. The Church in the past has done an abysmal job providing nourishing catechesis for her flock. Thus, it is not surprising that Catholics, poorly catechized, are seeking fulfillment in your church.

      Delete
    2. Where we disagree: your belief that you have your beginnings at Pentecost.

      Your pastor can never trace his anointing back to the Apostles.

      My pastor can.

      To wit: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

      My pastor was anointed by someone who was anointed by someone who was anointed......by Christ.

      Your pastor can't say that.

      That should be very, very troubling to you.

      Delete
    3. Finally, can you provide a reputable source that says that the Church killed and tortured millions of heretics?

      Delete
  10. 1Jn 2:26    These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.1Jn 2:27    But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
    Scripture is clear that the spirit of God is our teacher and counseler as shown here as the annointing that is provided each believer. It is those who would tell you that you can't understand scripture without them that are directly in conflict with scripture. Which is not suprising I mean look at the past heresies of the Catholic Church. They went as far as to say you could buy your loved ones out of a place called purgatory after they were already dead. A place that does not exist according to scripture. The Catholic Church went town to town teaching this clearing what little money the poor had making themselves far at the expense of the oppressed that were told they didn't need to understand the word of God because that was left to the church to do for them. And there are countless other heresies that I can and will happily provide you if you so desire. As for the Jesus name teaching. What few peoe realize is that originally the book of mathew was written by Matthew in the hebrew then was later translated and also revised when translated. The original hebrew manuscripts said "baptizing them in MY name" the later transcripts were translated and revised to give us the other formula of father son and Holy Spirit.
    And yes I agree truth is VERY important. The Catholic Church have long been and are still affiliated with some of the most dark an demonic orginazations on the planet. For them it is all about worldly power and wealth. I apologize for any misspelling as I am typing this on my phone. Stop swallowing the doctrine people from ANY ORGANIZATION feeds you get in the word and history and STUDY TO SHOW YOURSELF APPROVED.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you for your comments, richard. So many thoughts!

    Firstly, if you could please cite the place where Scripture says that purgatory does not exist, that would be helpful.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Secondly, can you provide the source that says that the original Hebrew manuscript said "baptizing them in MY name"?

    Thirdly, when you propose that this is the correct translation, unless you've actually seen the text and are a Hebrew scholar (which I am almost quite certain you are NOT), then aren't you doing exactly what you're condemning: swallowing doctrine people have fed you? You have simply swallowed the doctrine that the Gospel of Matthew was revised.

    You haven't seen it yourself, have you?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Finally, any further insults to my Church will not be published, richard. This blog is a place where all are welcome to post their refutations, as long as it is done in charity and without opprobrium.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is no purgatory found in the entirety of the word of God. Can't cite scripture that does not exist.
    We can however dream one up and say it does exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah. I see then. So your comment that Scripture says it doesn't exist is incorrect.

      This your quote: "A place that does not exist according to scripture."

      In other words, it appeared that you were going to show us where Scripture says, "Purgatory does not exist'.

      But that isn't quite true, is it?

      Scripture is silent on the word Purgatory.

      Just like Scripture never mentions the word Incarnation.

      And yet, I presume, that you believe in the Incarnation?

      Delete
    2. Also, I will add that there is no verse in Scripture that commands us fold our hands in worship.

      Does your pastor prohibit this in your services?

      Delete
    3. And there is no verse in Scripture that tells us how to conduct a wedding ceremony. Nor does it state that it should be done in a church.

      And yet your pastor conducts wedding ceremonies using God's Word, without a template from the Bible on how to do this?

      And conducts a wedding ceremony in a church, when the Bible mentions nothing at all about this?

      Delete
  15. Iv not taken doctrines taught by any organization and swallowed them. As I said. I have studied the word of God. Church history as well as Greek and hebrew. Although. I cannot say that I am fluent in them I am able to successfully use the tools that are available. I can provide documentation of everything I have spoken of and will save this page so that when I return to my study on Monday I will provide you with all the information you require documentation book references along with some Internet links. Although one of the pieces if information I have given you is common knowledge in all circles about Matthew being originally written in the hebrew. Which is accepted by almost all. I find it hard to believe you did not have access to this information within the catholic writings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Which is accepted by almost all".

      Isn't that what you are objecting to? You shouldn't "accept" what someone else has told you?

      You are accepting that the Gospel of Matthew has been mistranslated.

      You have believed this, without seeing it yourself. You haven't seen the original manuscript--I am certain of that. You haven't seen the putatively corrupted manuscript--of that I am also certain.

      Yet you proclaim a doctrine that you have simply swallowed without verification: "The Gospel of Matthew was mistranslated".

      That should be very, very troubling to you, richard!

      Delete
    2. Incidentally, I am not questioning that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. It was undoubtedly not written in Greek originally, but was penned either in Hebrew or Aramaic.

      That is, of course, something that the Catholic Church has professed.

      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

      Delete
  16. Scripture plainly DESCRIBES the incarnation not so with purgatory which holds men's souls captive after death. Also against the scripture which says "who the son set free is free indeed. The catholic doctrine clearly defies the personal relationship we are to have with God in which we interact with and hear from God on a daily basis. Claiming that they are the leading and guiding power in our lives. I have simply provided you with truth. You may shred it in any way you desire. No doubt though the people who are following this are looking up and reading about in there bible and on line the things I am speaking of and I CAN ASSURE YOU they will find my words to be accurate. Se Christ never spoke and defined his every statement. He simply allowed those who would RECIEVE it to RECIEVE it and those who would not well you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course Scripture describes purgatory, richard.

      Not sure what "who the son set free is free indeed" has to do with purgatory. Catholics give a hearty amen to that verse, although it is correctly ascribed as: "If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed."-John 8:36

      Also, can you cite the teaching where Church says that purgatory "holds men's souls captive after death"? I think you are condemning a false idea about what purgatory is. Kind of like if I said, "You believe that the Bible walks and talks. It does not. It the living Word of God, but it is inanimate."

      Delete
    2. As far as reading the Catholic Church claiming that it is the "leading and guiding power" in our lives--well, richard, that's ANOTHER thing that you have, ironically, swallowed from another organization, without actually researching it. You have been duped into believing something that someone told you.....

      The Catholic Church doesn't claim to be the "leading and guiding power". Unless you have some document from the magisterium which states this?

      Otherwise, it would appear that you have done exactly what you condemn: swallow what you've heard without investigating its veracity.

      Delete
  17. As I stated before I do not gather my theology from an organization or an organizations church but by the word of God. Marriage is clearly identified BY NAMEin the word. Not some far out revelation abou a place that is not exist drawn out of one of Christ figurative parables about how to live in forgiveness of debt tward one another. Marriage is not only named but defined. Pastor is not necessary nor does any of my teaching or tenants of faith include the necessity of a ceromony. Only your government with the license requirement with the signature of the one performing the ceromony. Some choose a preacher some a jp. Dosnt make it a doctrine either way. We are discussing established doctrines here. I'm sure that SOME tell you you don't know how to get married cause you can't hear from God yourself but not me. And why reference a pastor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, it is an organization which gave you this Word of God, the Bible. It comes to you and me via the organization called the Catholic Church.

      So each and every time you quote from, say, the Gospel of Matthew, you are giving tacit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church to tell you that the Gospel of Matthew is the Word of God.

      You wouldn't know it any other way, richard.

      There is no other way to know what belongs in the New Testament, save by giving deference to the authority of bishops of the Catholic Church who discerned which books belong there and which do not.

      Delete
    2. As far as marriage goes: where does the Bible tell your pastor what words to say in the ceremony?

      Answer: no where.

      So each and every time you attend a wedding ceremony in your church, you are following a tradition. A man-made tradition. One that is occurring in your very own church.

      And I will add: each and every time you fold your hands in prayer you are following a man-made tradition.

      Now, of course, I don't have any problem with man-made traditions. As long as they don't contradict the Word of God.

      However, it would appear that you are against man-made traditions? If so, then you ought never fold your hands in prayer, nor attend any wedding ceremony with words that aren't spelled out for you in the Bible, nor go to any "altar call" (where's THAT in the Bible? Answer: NOWHERE!), nor attend any Tuesday evening Bible studies (also, NOWHERE in the Bible!), or pray in a church that has a steeple (NOWHERE in the Bible)....or...so many things you do which aren't found in a single page of the Bible, yet occur in your church!

      Delete
  18. I swallowed it from you I guess you the one said that the church alone could interpret scripture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, sir. I have never said that "the Church alone could interpret Scripture".

      Could you please cite where you believe I said this?

      Delete
    2. In fact, please see here, where I say exactly the OPPOSITE of what you claim:

      What the Catholic Church actually professes is Catholics see that the Scriptures as "strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." Dei Verbum Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation We can read and personally interpret what a chapter/verse is speaking to us. What we can't do, however, is interpret it independent of the voice of the Church. That is, we are free to read about, say, the Multiplication of the Loaves and interpret it personally as saying, "I need not worry about having enough food for my dinner party. God is telling me to chill out!" But not to read it and say, "Well, I now believe that the Eucharist is simply a symbolic multiplication of the loaves and Jesus was speaking only figuratively about the Eucharist."
      http://threeminuteapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/10/didnt-catholic-church-used-to-forbid.html

      Delete
  19. My bible came from WILLIAM TYNDALE translated directly from Greek and hebrew manuscripts. In the link provided. Please pay special attention to the fact that he made use of the printing press and was printing bibles well before he was MURDERED for doing so then his body burned at the stake. These copies are still available today. Because just as when the early Christians were persecuted it only proved to spread the word even more I renounce the very catholic organization you claim that I submit to.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
    You can see here there were many others at work on the scriptures before the king James was published. And even it was a majority of the result of tyndales work. His translations making up nearly 80percemt of the whole. The additions by the kings scholars are clearly seen when contrasted against tyndales original writings.
    Here are more charicteristics of the church we speak of.
    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/inquis1.htm
    History no matter how much this organization would like can not be erased.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good morning, richard! Thank you for the link.

      William Tyndale, eh? From the 16th century? So for 1500 years no one knew that Jesus commanded baptism in his "name" only? Not until William Tyndale?

      I am astonished that you would submit to the authority of one man. Remember, according to your church, no one is infallible, so how do you know that his translation is correct?

      Delete
  20. You keep speaking of my church when I have not claimed or named one. U speak of my believes as though you know them though it is obvious you only know how to defend your denomination against other denominations or should we say demon-izations because that is what division is. There is but ONE church it is spoken of in Hebrews. THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST BORN. That his passage speaks of that church the head and mediator of that church JESUS and addresses the issue of who hears from God with a warning about not hearing from HIM. Notice it is to whom this letter is written that are being told of their status and responsibility to hear from GOD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can honestly say that your church doesn't have a pastor, doesn't perform wedding ceremonies (using a template that it made up), doesn't encourage you to fold your hands in prayer, doesn't have 27 books in its New Testament..then the above comments you made are valid.

      Otherwise, you still need to address those concerns. How is it that you are against man-made traditions yet still fold your hands in prayer? How is it that you are against believing things not found in the Bible yet have marriage ceremonies in your church?

      And the biggest one: how is it that you know that there should be 27 books in the NT, except that you give your submission to the authority of the Catholic Church to tell you this?

      Delete
  21. Just to clarify. I have NEVER been encouraged to fold my hands in prayer by any minister. Not have I encouraged any one to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough. I accept that.

      And I hope that in the future you will NEVER fold your hands in prayer again. For if your paradigm is, "If it's not in the Bible we can't believe in it" then you ought not ever be folding your hands.

      And, just to give you another friendly warning: your responses that include any kind of insult will not be published.

      A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself, "Would I like it if someone called my mother what I am accusing the Catholic Church of?" If you wouldn't like someone addressing your mother as, say, "Demonic" or "murderous", then don't include it in your responses.

      It's just a basic rule of charity here.

      Religion can certainly be discussed, and it has been discussed quite well with all the posts that I have published.

      Just think about how you would want someone talking about your mother, and that will give you a good model to follow for posting in the future, richard.

      Delete
  22. And, richard, I am sad that you have chosen to leave this discussion.

    That you feel you cannot discuss religion without opprobrium is quite distressing to me.

    Again, if you can't use words that wouldn't be offensive if someone described your mother, then there is something wrong.

    I wouldn't have a problem if someone said, "Your mother is mistaken about A, B and C". I would welcome that and say, "Let's talk about where she is mistaken!

    But if someone says, "Your mother is the spawn of Satan", well, no one would fault me for saying, "You are not permitted to say this in a charitable discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Replies
    1. Great! You are back!

      Yes, I know I said "spawn of Satan". It's an example.

      So, for other examples, if you wouldn't like it if I said, "Your mom worships the devil", then don't accuse the Catholic Church of worshipping the devil.

      However, if you wouldn't mind if I said, "Your mom believes some things which are wrong" (which you shouldn't mind that), then we can continue to discuss.

      As long as you follow that model, you should do fine, richard!

      There's lots of things we need to get straight.



      Delete
    2. The main thing you need to learn is this: each and every time you quote from the NT, you are giving tacit approval of the authority of the Catholic Church.

      For you would not know ANY OTHER WAY, except by submitting to the Catholic Church, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos, and that the Gospel of Barnabas is not.

      You accept the authority of the Catholic Church on that.

      Delete
  24. No. I'm not back just wanted to leave on humorous friendly terms. I try have enjoyed and would love to stay. I'm just so busy with training and all put in about 14 hours a day. As far as my knowledge of the word meaning I submit to the Catholic Church then it would be safe to say that in the Old Testament when temple worship items were taken by opposing armies and used and abused by their kings and in their pagan worship. Then reaquired by the Israelites that they were submitting to the authority of those pagan countries. See I'm learning from you. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good morning, richard!

      Just to be clear: I am not talking about your use of a Bible that the Catholic Church discerned for you.

      I am talking about your submission to their authority to tell you what belongs in the Bible, specifically, the New Testament.

      Each and every time you quote from, say, the Epistle to the Hebrews, you are saying, tacitly, "I defer to the Catholic Church, which discerned that this book is indeed God-breathed! I would not know it any other way, except that I submit to her wisdom and discernment!"

      Delete
  25. Also. The books that are not available within the cannon are beneficial as well I have not said that I renounce them because they are not approved by the Catholic Church. Incidentally I think it necessary for the benifit of any that may be following this conversation to say that many of the things we discuss here do not determine our entrance to heaven OR our status of forgiveness for that comes through the blood of Christ.

    http://listverse.com/2012/07/06/10-books-not-included-in-the-new-testament/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you believe the Epistle of Barnabas is the Word of God?

      How do you know?

      Do you believe the Epistle to the Hebrews is the Word of God?

      How do you know?

      Answer: the Catholic Church authoritatively declared one inspired and the other one not inspired.

      As such, you defer to her authority each and every time you read the Epistle to the Hebrews as the inspired Word of God.

      You would not know it any other way.

      Delete
    2. What you said here: "Incidentally I think it necessary for the benifit of any that may be following this conversation to say that many of the things we discuss here do not determine our entrance to heaven OR our status of forgiveness for that comes through the blood of Christ"....is very CATHOLIC! *thumbs up!*

      Delete
  26. I think where we are opposing each others belief here is that you say I accept the scriptures because the Catholic Church says that they are that. If this was so then I would not contidict parts of the very scripture you refer to. Not would I accept parts of the very scripture the Catholic Church rejected. Just because it passed through there hands doesn't mean it was erased or negated. And concerning your hearing from God on your own. If I understand correctly then as long as you go along with everything that they have interpreted for you you are free to operate and interpret as long as you don't contradict the guidelines they have set. I serve a pretty big GOD as I'm sure you agree. Who is bigger than any mans guidlins or lack of them there ceromony wa or lack of them. I Don't see him being confined to a box man set aside for him we constrain him only by belief. Peter walked on water when his eyes were set on Christ and the Word but when he looked at the limits of the mind if man in the natural and what he Saw around him he sank. Jesus did not condemn him for this but did correct him. Reguarding his faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that you reject some of the Catholic Church's interpretations of Scripture.

      But you MUST ACCEPT this point: you would not know which books of the NT belong there...except that you defer to the authority of the Church to tell you so.

      Delete
    2. Could you answer how you know that the Epistle of Barnabas is not the inspired Word of God, richard?

      You can't say: because it says A, B and C, and A, B and C are contrary to the Word of God.

      Because that presupposes that you already know what the Word of God is.

      It's circular.

      It's like saying, "I don't believe in the Gospel of Matthew because it talks about Peter walking on water. And men can't walk on water. Therefore I don't believe the Gospel of Matthew is inspired."

      You believe Peter walked on water because the Gospel of Matthew says it. And you already accept that Matthew is inspired (because the CC told you it is inspired!)

      But you can't say, "The Epistle of Barnabas talks about A, B and C and those events didn't happen, therefore Barnabas is not inspired".

      IF Barnabas was inspired, you'd have to believe A, B and C, right?

      So the question remains: how do you know that the Epistle of Barnabas isn't inspired?

      What Bible verse do you use to tell you this?

      And if you don't use the Bible, then aren't you going against your own paradigm of "I won't believe it if it's not proclaimed in the Bible"?

      Do you see how your own beliefs are self-refuting?

      Delete
  27. I never said that barnabas was not the inspired word of God nor have I said that everything in the cannon. My consultation with the father and his spirit reveal what he has spoken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow.

      So now there's a group of Christians who claim for themselves to be able to add to the Bible?

      Wow. Just wow.

      And I suppose you don't have a problem with a group of Christians who say that the Epistles of Paul are NOT inspired?

      http://www.lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

      So you consider Barnabas another inspired writer, and allow another Christian to say that St. Paul is a false inspired writer?

      *eek!*

      Delete
  28. The reason I accept what is inspired is because it is inspired. Not because cc told me it was if this were the case then I wouldn't believe anything else was inspired because they told me it wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear what you're saying. It sounds quite dangerous to me. You get to decide what's inspired.

      That means that so does the Mormon. And those people who decided that the Epistles of St. Paul are Satanic.

      Verrrrryyy very dangerous territory you're opening up, richard.

      Delete
    2. Also, could you please explain how you know something is inspired?

      Is it something you feel, like the Mormon paradigm of the "burning in the bosom"?

      Can you read a passage and just know it's the Word of God because of the way it makes you feel after you've prayed to the Holy Spirit?

      Is that what you're saying?

      Delete
  29. There is defiantly a group of Christians that added everything that was needed to CONTROLL peasants and people so that they may rule over them. You are surely correct in saying the word was added to. I however have not said the epistles of Paul were not inspired. And would contradict any one that says other wise. Not because the cc says he is inspired. But because he is inspired. You can plainly see that the writings that were converted from Latin to English were abandoned for the writings that were translated from the original Greek and hebrew text in the link I sent you. Gods word hidden and with held from constituents in any language they could read. UNTILL the cat was out of the bag and GODS WORD came bursting forth any way then only did the cc concede and to allowing commin people have the word for themselves. I am thankfull for the actions of the cc. For without them we would not have had the many martyred that tell us that GODS WORD was worth dying for then and is worth being crucified for by the "church" today just as it was then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, before we go any further, you need to answer this question, richard, please: are we as Christians permitted to add to the inspired Word of God or not?

      I am confused--for it seems as if you are permitting this for yourself (in the case of the Epistle of Barnabas) but are condemning the Catholic Church for allegedly doing this?

      So is it ok to add to the Bible or not?

      Delete
    2. And then secondly, if you could please answer the question I've already posed several times: how do you know whether something is inspired (God's Word) or not?

      Is it just a feeling you get after you pray?

      And does every Christian have the right to declare something inspired or not inspired, like you have claimed for yourself?

      Delete
  30. To clarify we are speaking hypothetically of the book of barnabas not of content. But as an example that I as a spirit filled believer in The Lord Jesus Christ am able to discern what is good and what is evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough.

      But could you please answer the questions before we go further: are we permitted to add to the Bible? Yes or no?

      And what criteria do you use to discern whether a text is the inspired Word of God?

      Thank you.

      Delete
  31. Richard: I won't publish any more of your posts until you answer the question I've already posed 4 times: how do you know what's the inspired Word of God?

    Please give your criteria, and then we can discuss further.
    For example: I know that something is the Word of God if it was written by an apostle, mentions Jesus' name, and talks about the Virgin Birth."

    (NB: these are made up examples I've given. Examples. I am not assigning them to you. I have no idea what your criteria is for discerning whether something is the Word of God. That's why I'm asking).

    And it would be helpful if you tell me where you got this criteria. For example, "I know it's the Word of God if it mentions Jesus' name!"
    And that comes from Bible Verse A.

    Give me your criteria, and the Bible Verse (if that's where it comes from) that supports this, and then we can chat further.

    (If your criteria doesn't come from the Bible, then that should give you pause, no? You're believing in something that you haven't based on the Bible.)

    ReplyDelete
  32. I have answered wether you choose to publish it or not is your choice. I notice some things iv posted have not been published. Could be intercepted service on my end though. Being I am monile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sorry--but I have completely missed your criteria.

      Unless you mean to say your answer was: I just know Scripture because I know it is, from a feeling I have.

      Surely that can't be your method of determining what is theopneustos!

      Surely not.

      Delete
  33. The word of God cannot by me or any other man be added to not now not before now and not in the future. Not before the cannon we have now nor after it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen!

      Now, richard, take a look at the inconsistency of your position. You are unwilling to say: the Epistle of Barnabas is not the Word of God.

      Yet it is not in your Bible.

      If you believe it is indeed the inspired Word of God, then you are contradicting what you have just written.

      Delete
  34. I have never stated that it being in or not included in my bible is what makes it the word of God. Therefore I have not contradicted what I stated. My statement PLAINLY states that the word of God existed before the cannon therefore the cannon does not cause the word to exist not can the word be defined as the cannon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think about what you're saying.

      You're saying you know what's the inspired Word of God without anyone else telling you it's inspired.

      You know this just because of a feeling you have.

      That's very, very dangerous territory you're venturing into, richard.

      That means that anyone can read any text, claim that since they're a Christian that they'll know if it's inspired, and either decide, "Yes, 3 John is inspired but no Titus is not!" or "Yes, the Epistle of Barnabas is inspired but Hebrews is not!"

      If you reserve for yourself this right, then you permit everyone to do that.

      And that is, my friend, the recipe for chaos and confusion.

      Just what the devil ordered.

      He wants you to think you have the power and authority to read a text and declare, "This is NOT the Word of God".

      Very. Very. Treacherous.

      Delete
    2. As far as the Word of God existing before the canon, that is absolutely true. We are agreed on that.

      But an organization was needed to sift through the over 400 ancient Christian texts to discern which ones of those were theopneustos, and which ones were not.

      Without the Catholic Church, you would have to read and "pray over" all of those 400 ancient texts and decide if you get that "feeling" that this book is inspired and this book is not.

      You have not done that. Of that, I am 100% certain.

      So that means you defer to the authority of my Church to tell you what belongs in the Bible.



      Delete
  35. You are correct in saying that I have not sifted through all the ancient however you are totally missin the point about my submission to the catholic church. It was evil for William TYNDALE to be murdered but God used it for Good do I submitt to the evil NO I submitt to the good God wrought out of the evil. Se you miss the point. No organization was necessary for the word to exist. What you are saying about the cc and the word is like saying that the Isrealits submitted to Pharo therefore he is credited with their being released from bondage. You can believe that way if you want to. I choose to believe God delivered them and caused the EVIL Pharo to do exactly as he had planned. Just as the word of God was withheld until the pressure was to great and overthrow of the organization was imminent then the people were delivered by the word of God. The murders that took place and all the evil and oppression was not forgotten by God as that Egypt was left in shambles for what they had done to Gods children nother has the sin of the cc been forgotten as is obvious the rampant sin that is present in the leadership of it. Homosexuality and child molestation run roughshod. Prescription drugs depression at an all time high in the cc. I tell you this. Those things enter our atmosphere as well but they cannot abide there. You ask me how I know I have the Word of God it is because if the impact that it has we see addicts set free. Never intending to have anything to do with God come into a service even to make fun if the Christians wind up miraculously delivered in a moment in time. Homosexuals set free. Marriages restored not by counseling of religious organizations but by the power of the ANNOINTED word that is what breaks the yoke. I assure you the scandals and rampant immorality and the abomination of homosexuality that runs from the highest positions I leadership in are testimony that the power and annointing will not be found in anything underneath them. Many organizations turn corrupt at the head I do not debate this. And just as I have spoken the power of God will not flow through them. They will maintain that form of Godliness but by the impurity of there lives will deny the power of it. I have seen struggling churches with our hearts wanting to do the will of God but because of the organization they were tied to no power would flow and the moment they cut ties God move in a mighty way. See its the impact that shows me the inspired word. The word spoken through a pure vessel (not perfect mind you) but purely motivated. Will be the inspired word of God the same word out of the same bible will not be when spoken out of an impure vessel or one that chooses to attach itself to an impure head. So it should bother you that your organization is so set on being sure that everyone believes that they are in submission to them because they are solely responsible for the Word of God. Because there in itself lies the most identifiable of impure motives the desire for human recognition and power.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Let's stop at your first sentence, because the rest of your post is a nonsequitur.

    If you do not submit to the authority of the Catholic Church to tell you what is the Word of God, then you decide for yourself what is God's Word. That's your position.

    If you decided for yourself, you are OBLIGATED to sift through all the other ancient documents and decide if they are the Word of God or not.

    You have not done that.

    That is a very, very big problem for you that you need to address here.

    Why haven't you done that?

    Answer: because you defer to the authority of the Catholic Church which told you that they are not theopneustos.

    That the Word of God existed before the Church determined which books belong in the Bible is not being argued here. Of course it was the Word of God before the Church. However, it was the CATHOLIC CHURCH which told you that the Gospel of Mark is inspired and the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

    You wouldn't know it any other way except that you are deferring to her decision.

    It was the Catholic Church that told you. That, richard, is indisputable.

    ReplyDelete
  37. My position is clear. The power is the I have not testified of my own power but the Fathers power through me. I don't submitt to pharo, I don't submitt to Paul, Peter, mark Luke your getting the picture. Good men were used by God to bring about his purpose. Just as evil men were used by God to fulfill his purpose. I guess I should submitt to satan because he is required to release me from bondage by the power Of God. Should I turn and pay homage to him for deliverance?? Or baalam who was found to be of impure heart and motives and would have used his gift to prophet himself. Only God caused him to speak what he wanted said. Did the Israelites then submitt to baalam. No they did not. Because regardless of the vessel the submission is to God. It's sad to see people submitted FIRST to their organization before anything else. It's my pray that people understand. That the word of God through his people has,can,and will again go out even when we are unable to have a copy of it for ourselves. For god is not a book that can be touched but a spirit. And I have a great fellowship with that spirit. I can't help when people choose to abuse power position talent to lead people astray either by mis guiding them through the text or by adding to it what is not God. They alone are responsible for that. God will surely judge every act either here or in eternity. I trust God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That still doesn't change this incontrovertible fact, friend:

      Each and every time you quote from, say, 3 John, or Titus, or the Gospel of Matthew, you are giving your tacit submission to the Catholic Church.

      Each and every time.

      You accept that the Church discerned for you and me that those books are the Word of God.

      You wouldn't know it any other way.

      In fact, you've never studied any of the books to decide if they are theopneustos.

      You've always accepted they were.

      Because...

      you accept the Catholic Church's authority.

      I am just pointing that out to you--something your pastor has never told you.

      The Holy Bible didn't come down from heaven on the wings of a dove, leather bound and in KJV format.

      It came to you and me through....

      the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

      Delete
  38. Again I know what is inspired because it is. Not because of the group or single man that claimed it was. It passed through the fire of time not because if the cc but because it is eternal. Christ just so you understand as well. Iv ministered in hundreds of churches and am about to again in just a moment (the message by the way is inspired by this blog). THE NATURE OF A MAN. See for what we do in the kingdom we can have no glory. This glory seeking comes from the human nature. Not the spirit man. This desire in us to be recognized by men or for the group we are a part of to be THE GROUP is a sinful nature. It's simply the pride if life. Pride is the foulest stench there is to God. It says I did it or collectively as a group we did it. but this is what happened. Your criteria says that God submitted to pharo because pharo is the one who SAID let them go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None of what you say above, richard, is Biblical.

      There is not a single verse, from Genesis through Revelation, that says, "I'll know what is inspired because it is".

      You're going to tell me that you can read: "My breath is offensive to my wife" and know that it's inspired? Really?

      And "Saul went into a cave to relieve himself"? You recognize that as theopneustos because of a feeling you get when you read that?

      Delete
    2. And, richard, I hope you think long and hard about how you've declared that you just know Scripture "because it is."

      That's, frankly, an absurd supposition.

      It's not found anywhere in the Bible.

      Where this idea comes from is beyond me.

      No one can read a text and know if it's Scripture.

      The ONLY way anyone knows that something is the inspired Word of God is because.... he has deferred to the authority of the Catholic Church which discerned the 27 book canon of the NT for you and me.

      Delete
  39. If we pray in jesus name , we bless food in jesus name, we ask forgiveness in jesus name, why would we not want to baptize in jesus name?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment, Mike.

      And Catholics do indeed baptize in Jesus' name. We baptize in the NAME of the Father, and of the SON (who is, of course, Jesus), and of the Holy Spirit.

      Delete
    2. Explain the following please.
      The writings of the Church Fathers:
      ""The Faith of the Early Fathers"", Volume One;
      “Readings in Church History”, Volume One.
      Written by Rev. John D. Sims.
      150 AD
      Justin Martyr, makes the first change in Apostolic teaching on water baptism and the godhead. Since Justin did not believe that Jesus was The Father manifested in the flesh as the Apostles taugth, he baptized his converts as followes: “I baptize you in the name of God the Father and the Lord of all, and our Savior, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost”. Justin believed and taught as the Jews. That the name of God was so holy and such a great mystery that man could never know it. This is why he believed God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ were two different persons. It was this unbelief in the name of Jesus Christ as being also the name of God the Father and the Holy Gost that laid the foundation of the coming development of the trinities in Christian religious world.
      150 AD
      Justin Martyr makes the first change in Apostolic teaching on water baptism. While he keeps Apostolic teaching on repentance, the blood, and submersion, he changes the words used in the ceremony and he lays the foundation for the development of the soon coming trinity formula of water baptism.
      190 – 200 AD
      Origen (philosopher) and Tertullian (lawyer) who became believers via the teachings of Justin Martyr change Justin Marty’s baptismal formula to just quoting Mt. 28:19.
      190 – 200 AD
      Origen and Terullian develop the first two trinity doctrines and then develop the trinity formula of water baptism. Like Justin Martyr, Origen and Tertullian keep Apostolic teaching on the repentance, the blood, and submersion, but they no longer use the name of Jesus Christ in the application of water baptism to the convert.
      325 AD
      Under the Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea, the Western trinity of Tertullian and the trinity formula of water baptism becomes the official doctrine for all Christian churches in the Roman Empire, by Imperial decree.
      All religious systems outside of the trinity were declared to be heresies including the theatchings of the Apotles and the teachings of Arias along with many other groups. Under Constantine, the so-called trinity Christian religous world became the national religion of the Empire. At this time, the prophecy of the Apostle Peter in 2 Pet. 21-2 was fulfilled.
      David.

      Delete
    3. David, thanks for your comments. But I believe you have been duped. When I read the comments putatively written by an author of a published book, I was perplexed--how could a published author write with such poor grammar? Random commas and random capitalizations made me suspicious.

      So I did a bit of research and found that there is no such book written by a Reverend John Sims.

      I suggest you read the actual book, "The Faith of the Early Fathers". You will find the actual writings of Tertullian, St. Justin and others.

      Amazon has it here: http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Three-Volume-Set/dp/0814610250

      Delete
    4. The quotes you gave come from a bizarre website: http://www.endtimesministry.com/eschatology/timeline.html

      What is written on that website has no basis in fact. It has poor scholarship, not to mention really, really bad writing skills. Again, with the random capitalizations and random commas, we know that no educated person actually wrote this.

      If you can offer an actual primary source that documents that St. Justin "makes the first change in Apostolic teaching on water baptism and the godhead" that would be helpful.

      Delete
  40. Hi! I have a question. You stated, "No one can read a text and know if it's Scripture" and also that "The Holy Bible didn't come down from heaven on the wings of a dove, leather bound and in KJV format." Is it that you do believe that some are/were a qualified to determine what is the Word of God or do you believe something different? Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your question, Baskinator.

      I believe that the books that are in the Bible are the inspired Word of God for the same reason that you do: we defer to the authority of the Catholic Church.

      So, IOW: yes, I do believe that some folks, Catholic folks to be specific--Catholic bishops to be even more specific, were given the authority to determine what is the Word of God.

      Delete
  41. TAA, Thank you for correcting/clarifying your previous statement. Do you believe Catholic bishops still possess the authority to determine what is God's inspired word, say, if new manuscripts were unearthed? Or do you believe that was only for a limited time in history?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I do, Baskinator.

      What about you? Do you believe in the authority of the CC?

      If not, how is it that you determined that, say, the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired but that the Epistle to Barnabas is not?

      Delete
  42. No one should follow a church that misinterprets Jesus’ words and contradicts the Apostles tradition in baptism and teachings. No one should follow a church which claims Jesus’ name isn’t to be used in baptism, but then tells you it’s imperative to use the words “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” If it’s not important to use Jesus’ name, it’s not important to use any name. No one should submit to a church which goes against the 1st century practice of baptizing by immersion and submersion in scripture and the earliest historical records. No one should stay in a church which says it’s correct to adore, bow to, or venerate images of anything when the Bible clearly says not to. No one who believes in the Bible should allow himself or herself to be tricked into accepting someone other than Jesus as the ONE and only MEDIATOR between us and God. (1st Timothy 2:5, John 14:6) No one who is truly converted to would believe that God has patron saints, like the pagans, with jurisdiction over certain elements. No one should believe that Peter was a “lord” or “king” over the church after he said that we are not supposed to be “lords” over God heritage, but examples to the flock. (1st Peter 5:3) No one should be in a church that can’t admit that Christ is the Rock, but would try to justify itself by claiming its following Peter and that the Church is built on him. (Psalm 62:2, Acts 4:11-12) No one should stay in a church that changes the Scripture from Greek to Latin and then claims that Latin is the sacred language while burning bibles in other languages for centuries and murdered other Christian groups just because they didn’t accept the bishop of Rome. No one should think that Roman Catholicism is without its own schisms when it had popes elected by force, had 2 and 3 popes installed simultaneously, and had bishops that were illegitimate sons of former bishops, and had popes voted in by the majority it was often in connection with corrupt, wealthy patricians of Rome. No one should believe in a priesthood of bishops who pagan miters.
    No one should believe Rome’s admission of having good and bad popes no excuse for the popes and Church standing with dictators such as Mussolini who attacked Ethiopia so he could make Italy a modern-day empire. If the popes were directed by God, how did they lose the Crusades and believe that they had jurisdiction over the western world based on a forged document called the “Donation of Constantine?” No one should be in a church that claims to be sacrificing Jesus’ body literally every time a mass is conducted. The Bible says Christ’s death was not to be repeated and that those who sacrificed him were Roman soldiers, not Christian ministers. (Hebrews 9:24-28, Hebrews 10:10-12) And lastly, no one should take part of a “mass” (or communion) where the priests or ministers officiating believes that those taking the cup are drinking the literal blood of someone, whether it be Jesus or someone else. Jesus was called the “Lamb of God” and the “Lion of Judah,” but these are symbolic terms identifying him as the sacrifice to atone for humanity’s sins and be the ruler who comes out of the tribe of Judah. There are some well-intended people in the Roman Church and elsewhere; however, the Lord was not speaking in symbols in Revelation when He said “Come out of her my people.” (Revelation 18:4) Any church that turns people away from the Apostles’ teachings and disregards the Bible for men’s traditions, customs, holidays, practices, is in grave danger. This is partially why the book of Revelation is not taken literally by the Roman Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Anonymous. So much to address with so much misinformation you've been given!

      Firstly, here is where we are agreed: "No one should follow a church that misinterprets Jesus’ words and contradicts the Apostles tradition in baptism and teachings. No one should follow a church which claims Jesus’ name isn’t to be used in baptism,"

      Also you are absolutely correct here: "No one who believes in the Bible should allow himself or herself to be tricked into accepting someone other than Jesus as the ONE and only MEDIATOR between us and God. (1st Timothy 2:5, John 14:6)" and here: "No one should believe that Peter was a “lord” or “king” over the church after he said that we are not supposed to be “lords” over God heritage, but examples to the flock. (1st Peter 5:3)" And here: "No one should be in a church that can’t admit that Christ is the Rock,"

      Not sure what this means:
      "No one should believe in a priesthood of bishops who pagan miters" but if you mean that no Church should embrace paganism, then we are agreed.

      And here we are agreed: "No one should be in a church that claims to be sacrificing Jesus’ body literally every time a mass is conducted."

      And you are very correct here: "There are some well-intended people in the Roman Church and elsewhere;" and here: "however, the Lord was not speaking in symbols in Revelation when He said “Come out of her my people.” (Revelation 18:4) Any church that turns people away from the Apostles’ teachings and disregards the Bible for men’s traditions, customs, holidays, practices, is in grave danger. "

      All of the above: very Catholic! *thumbs up!*

      Delete
    2. Now, regarding where you're so wrong...

      This, here, is absolutely incorrect:
      "No one should stay in a church which says it’s correct to adore, bow to, or venerate images of anything when the Bible clearly says not to." The Bible actually has LOTS and LOTS of places where people bow to and adore and venerate images, and...in fact, people bow to and venerate other HUMANS!

      And he came and stood near where I stood: and when he was come, I fell on my face trembling, and he said to me: Understand, O son of man, for in the time of the end the vision shall be fulfilled.—Daniel 8:17
      Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”
      14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[b] have for his servant?”
      15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.—Joshua 5:12-15
      Genesis 33:3 Jacob bows down before Esau
      1 King Chapters 1 and 2: Bathsheba bows before the king, and when Solomon becomes king he bows to Bathsheba
      Revelation: Jesus says that those who are of the synagogue of Satan, I will cause them to come down and bow before your feet

      Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole,
      and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent
      looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.--Numbers 21:8

      Delete
    3. And you absolutely contradict the Bible when you state the Church wasn't founded upon Peter: "Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it."

      Delete
    4. Regarding this statement: " No one should stay in a church that changes the Scripture from Greek to Latin"....where is that in the Bible? And is changing the Scripture from Greek to English ok but Greek to Latin wrong?

      As far as this: "and then claims that Latin is the sacred language while burning bibles in other languages"....she only burned Bibles if they contained grave errors of mistranslation.

      Regarding: "for centuries and murdered other Christian groups just because they didn’t accept the bishop of Rome"...I assure you that your church also participated in atrocities against Catholics, so that is a moot point.

      Delete
    5. Regarding: "If the popes were directed by God,"...the CC dies not claim that popes, any popes, have been "directed by God". The charism of infallibility is nothing more than God preventing a pope from teaching error.

      As far as this statement:
      " No one should be in a church that claims to be sacrificing Jesus’ body literally every time a mass is conducted."...the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a representation of the Final Sacrifice of Christ, given once for all. It is not a literal, bloody re-sacrifice.

      As far as this statement: "And lastly, no one should take part of a “mass” (or communion) where the priests or ministers officiating believes that those taking the cup are drinking the literal blood of someone, whether it be Jesus or someone else."...well, this contradicts Scripture also! You know that we are COMMANDED in the Bible to drink His Blood. (see John 6)

      .

      Delete
  43. Support with the KJV of the Bible,were one person was baptized in the Trinity,the father,son and holy ghost.In the Bible!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's right after the verse that says that we have to "support with the KJV of the Bible anything that we believe". ;-)

      Delete
  44. Ok I am not sure why this showed up on my email but I have got to speak to this issue. JESUS is the FATHER, SON and HOLY GHOST. The apostles knew exactly who he was, GOD manifested in the flesh. There was no confusion among them. When JESUS gave the great commission to them they knew exactly what HE was saying, when he said to baptize in the name of the FATHER, SON and HOLY GHOST. Remember the apostles were all Jews and knew only one GOD and that one GOD was JESUS, They were with Him and was told that EVERYTHING they did they were to do in His name, not titles. So of course they baptized in the name of JESUS. Look I was raised Baptist and believed I was saved because I went to the front of the church and repeated the sinners prayer, was baptized in the trinity. and for 30 some years have believed the lie that was told to me, until something extraordinary happened 3 years ago that rocked the foundation of my faith. My son who has been an addict and alcoholic all his life got a hold of something that changed a vile disgusting, person into a new creation. He was introduced to the truth, the new testament salvation plan. Acts 2:38. After years of struggling and trying all the traditional things that men told him he needed to do, in one afternoon he did exactly what GOD tells us to do and was set free, he received the baptism of the HOLY GHOST with the evidence of tongues and was baptized for the third time only this time he was baptized in the name of JESUS. That has been 3 years ago and he has never looked back. He tells his story everywhere he goes and has led more people to the lord in this short time than many pastors have in a lifetime of preaching, including me his mom, and I had the privilege of being baptized by him in the name of JESUS. Look I don't know much, but I do know this, that GOD does not change. His method of salvation, it is still the same as when the first church was started, and there are billions of people that have experienced the new testament salvation. I can say from experience that it has changed my life completely. I never knew that I could have such a precious relationship with our creator. I can truly say without a doubt that I am HIS child. My sons favorite thing to say is "I'm glad I was an addict and drunk because if I hadn't been I probably never would have found the truth". Most people that are not broken never find this truth, I only found it because of his brokenness. that is why I believe JESUS went and preached to the broken because He knew they would receive HIS truth. Most people are so bound by the traditions of men that the churches are teaching that they are blind to the truth. GOD woke me up one morning at 3 :00 with one word, OBEDIENCE. I struggled with what I was seeing in my son and what he was telling me had happened to him and so after months of prayer, GOD gave me that one word and I realized that HE just wants obedience to HIS word, so I did exactly what the first church did, Acts 2:38. WOW! why do we make it so difficult? He gave us instructions in HIS word and through his apostles, they are the ones that spent time with HIM and PETER was the one He gave the keys to the kingdom to. The book of Acts is the template for us to follow, it is the ACTS of the first church-our example. We as a people have made a mess of this and really need to stop arguing about it and let go of our pride and just be obedient to HIS word. The baptism of the HOLY GHOST is truly what breaks the yoke. Seek it, pray for it and receive the living waters that JESUS spoke of. I did and realize how very blessed I am. Praises to our LORD and KING! GOD BLESS ALL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your response, darlean. Not sure why it showed up in your email, either, but it would be nice to think that the Holy Spirit led you here. :)

      Everything you say, above, is quite Catholic. We do believe that we baptize in Jesus' Name. But just not ONLY Jesus' Name. We baptize in the NAME of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, also.

      We do believe in Acts 2:38. Just not ONLY Acts 2:38.

      We do believe that Acts is the template for a Church to follow, just not ONLY Acts.

      We do believe that God calls the broken, and it is only through His Word, Jesus Christ, that we can be saved.

      Amen!

      Delete
    2. Incidentally, have you ever thought about how you know that the Book of Acts is the Word of God?

      How do you know that Acts is inspired and belongs in the Bible, but, say, the Epistles of Clement are not inspired?

      The ONLY answer is: because the Catholic Church decided for you and me that Acts is God-breathed but Clement's letters are not.

      You would not know it any other way, darlean.

      You simply trust the Catholic Church on this teaching.

      Delete
  45. Sir, I don't believe it is the catholic church that I am trusting in for any thing. I don't believe there is one particular denomination that has a market on complete truth. I believe that GOD hates the division that we have made with all the different denominations, I believe that GODS word is inspired and is truth and it is all we need to live. it tells us everything we need to know. I do not think that we should follow any denomination that does not line up with the word. As far as the baptism formula, the apostles baptized in the correct manner always. I don't get hung up on this because if the name of JESUS is pronounced over that person and not just the father, son and holy ghost then it is correct, but if it is just the titles then it is incorrect. It is not biblical. Does it matter? I believe it does. GOD is a GOD of order and if we try to change the order we stand in judgment. We see that throughout the bible. As far as the book of Acts, it is the summation of what GOD planned from the beginning. The old testament and the new was preparing us for this. The Jews first and then the Gentiles. From the beginning REPENTENCE was preached, that is the message throughout the bible. That was Johns and JESUS message. Acts is the summation of what all the prophets and our LORD taught, Belief in HIM, REPENTENCE, and BAPTISM for the remission of our sins and then most importantly the baptism of the HOLY GHOST. I fear most people will miss this because they have been brought up in one particular denomination and will refuse to believe any thing else but what is taught in that church. This is what I believe JESUS was talking about when he warned of following the traditions of men. We should never trust any man to teach us but trust the HOLY SPIRIT who leads us into all truth. Thank You and GOD BLESS.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Thanks for your response, darlean. BTW, I am not a "sir". I am a woman. :)

    Regarding not trusting in the Catholic Church...I know you BELIEVE that you don't, but if you think about it...you have to trust in the authority of the Catholic Church if you believe that the Acts of the Apostles is the inspired Word of God, and you don't believe that the Epistle of Barnabas is not inspired.

    For the ONLY way you know what's inspired and what's not is because you defer to the authority of the CC.

    ReplyDelete
  47. As far as everything else you say, it is indeed very CATHOLIC! *thumbs up!*

    ReplyDelete
  48. darlean hutchisonJuly 26, 2015 at 4:00 PM

    Sorry for the assumption that you were male. I have been reading through all the post on this forum and wonder why is it so important to you that people recognize the authority of the catholic church? If what you say is true that the catholic church decided what was inspired or not inspired by GOD and that I am sure you believe was the first church, then all I can say is that it is certainly unrecognizable as such today. I am not here to debate that issue, but only feel that all denominations have corrupted what was first established. I am not promoting any one group, or am I condemning any. All I have is my experience with the living GOD. And as I am still a babe in CHRIST still learning, I am understanding that arguing over issues that have been debated over throughout history is silly and does not accomplish anything. We as GODS representatives here on earth are not here to argue but to lead others to truth by our witness and testimony to what GOD has done in our lives. I would encourage others to do this on this forum. GOD does not care about how bible smart we are or if we win debates or who has the last word, remember He saves by the foolishness of preaching the gospel. If we are to save a lost and dying world we will not do it by arguing or debating anything. WAKE UP PEOPLE- The time is short and the days of working or drawing to a close. Do we care about souls or do we care about what denomination we are a member of, who is right or wrong, what church decided was inspired or not. Like I said before if the catholic church is responsible for that as you say, then it has strayed far from what that first church was, as has many others. Lets get back to basics, do what the very first church did, REPENT and seek the baptism of the HOLY GHOST. You want power from on high? Then that's how to get it. I don't expect that you will publish this as it probably offends you. That is not my intent, I am not bashing the catholic church or any one that is associated with it. There are so many that think that they have it all figured out, well I am not one of them because I know I have a lot to learn, but as Solomon states in Proverbs we are to lean not to our own understanding, but to trust GOD with all our heart, so this is what I am trying to do. I can relate to Acts 2:38 because I had the same experience as those on the day of Pentecost. So that's how I know its is real. Well enough said, again I encourage all that has not been baptized in the HOLY GHOST to pray for this anointing that breaks all the chains of bondage. Be fully surrendered to HIM, and forget all the traditions that have been taught but focus on the WORD and be obedient to it. Prayers and GODS blessings to all who reads this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for returning to chat, darlean. Your comments are appreciated.

      To answer your question: it is important to me to have Christians acknowledge the authority of the CC for 3 reasons:

      1) Because it's true. No one know what's inspired except for their deferring to the authority of the CC

      2) Because it means that everyone who quotes from the NT as the inspired Word of God is NOT a Bible Alone advocate, but rather trusts in the traditions of MEN--Catholic men, Catholic bishops to be specific--to tell them what is God-breathed

      3) Because it means that you believe that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility. Since you believe (presumably) that the CC got it right in determining that Hebrews is inspired but the Epistles of Clement are not...then this necessarily means that you believe the Holy Spirit guided the Church not to erroneously include some books or exclude some other books.

      Delete
    2. Regarding "arguing over issues that have been debated over throughout history is silly"...well, if you look at the Scripture verse I have near the top of this post (Matt 22), you will see that we are commanded to love God with our MIND. That's what all of this is--coming to know and love God with our MIND and intellect.

      Isaiah says that we should, "Come and reason together". That is, use your mind and intellect and reason to come to an understanding of Truth.

      Without discussions like this, we end up with chaos and confusion.

      We don't know whether God is a Trinity or only a Unity.

      We don't know whether baptism saves use (as 1 Peter 3:21 says), or it merely gets us wet.

      We don't know whether divorce and remarriage is adultery or it's something we can overlook.

      We don't know whether Sunday is the day of worship, or whether this is an abomination before the Lord, as some Seventh Day Adventists assert.

      So that's why it's important to discuss the Word and to come to a knowledge of the Truth together.

      Delete
  49. First of all,Jesus spoke with his Apostles forty days,after he rose from the dead.Jesus spoke of things pertaining to the kingdom of God.After that Jesus gave commandments unto the Apostles through the Holy Ghost.Jesus told his Apostles,Go ye therefore,and teach all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).After the Apostles received the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:1-4).They went forth under the direction of the Holy Ghost and baptized in Jesus Name,(Acts 2:38,8:12,10:48,19:5,22:16) just to name a few.Either Jesus is the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost,or the Apostles did not obey,what Jesus commanded them to do.There is no contradiction in the Word of God.There is not one Scripture,to support,Water Baptism in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost in Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I agree with everything you say, save for your last sentence.

    And you yourself offered Scripture support for baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit--Matthew 28:19.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Do you believe the apostles did not baptize in the name of Jesus, that baptism in Jesus name is valid, or that the apostles erred in their manner of baptism? (Or something different?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that the Apostles baptized in the manner that Christ taught them: by using water, and saying, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".

      Delete
  52. Amateur Apologist, on your response to Darlean on July 26, 2015 @ 4:41pm, you responded by stating that "we don't know whether God is a Trinity or a Unity", or "if baptism saves or gets us wet", or " whether divorce & remarriage is adultery or is something we can overlook".....well your DEFENSE of the Catholic Faith looks kinda milky and cloudy now. If you are truly born again, baptized in Jesus' name according to the instructions Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 28:19 and where they obeyed His instructions when the Day of Pentecost arrived by baptizing people in His name, which is Jesus, from the book of Acts, namely Acts 2:38 as well as other instances in Acts where the apostles baptized those who BELIEVED in the name of Jesus, and if you truly have the Holy Ghost, well one can truly see and know from the jump that divorce & remarriage (unless your spouse is deceased) is clearly ADULTERY. When you stated that "is something we can overlook"....well here again, you stated "WE"....wait a minute, "WE" are not the person who is supposed to "overlook" it or "not overlook" it! It is truly and ONLY the Lord who will not overlook adultery! Having sexual relations with someone other than your spouse, divorcing and remarrying someone while your spouse is still living is adultery...no matter how one tries to "find" scripture to try to diminish it or erase it, it still is stated in the Word (even if you tear the pages out, the Word is still there & it states just what it states). Thus, if you have the defense of the TRUTH, you would KNOW what's right and acceptable by the WORD. Also, where is your defense for the Trinity as you have defended since the onset of your post? You stand in the Catholic Faith FOR the Trinity, yet you stand now (in your response to Darlean on 07/26/15 @ 4:41pm) that you are not sure whether God is a Trinity or a Unity?!?! If you have the Holy Ghost, baptized in Jesus' name as I stated earlier, then your spirit would line up with the TRUTH. Even Jesus said, "My sheep know my voice" and He also stated "...whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother". I beseech you, Mr. Apologist, to "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith....except ye be reprobates". I give God all the glory & honor & praise and I indeed thank Him everyday for saving me!!! He had given me His Holy Spirit where I can gladly rejoice, and that I know for a certainty that I am in the Faith, standing on the foundation that He built, where Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone, and thus, straight-forward the Holy Ghost that's inside of me can discern when something looks milky.....for instance, divorcing & remarriage, Trinity vs Unity, baptism only gets us wet or not?? Your spirit will line up with what is right...stand up for the DEFENSE OF THE WORD!!! Holiness, truth & righteousness...all I can say is OBEY THE WORD GIVEN TO YOU, TO US, TO EVERY NATION, OF THE DOCTRINE, THE APOSTLES' DOCTRINE....(because that is what the Word tells us to do....not man-made traditions, thoughts, & ideas and not man-made doctrines).....refer to the WORD!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Paula B.

      It probably took you a long time to write the above, and I appreciate the effort, but it appears that you didn't realize the IF/THEN argument that is being proposed.

      IF there is no discussion, THEN we have...[fill in the blank with all the different doctrines that have come around as a result of reading the Bible]

      It's kind of like my saying to you: IF you believe that your gardener is stealing from you, THEN you should fire him...

      and then you're saying, "How dare you tell me to fire my gardener! He's the best gardener that there ever was and he would never steal from me!"

      You missed the "IF" part of the proposition.

      Delete
    2. Paula B: regarding your comment here: "OBEY THE WORD GIVEN TO YOU, TO US, TO EVERY NATION, OF THE DOCTRINE, THE APOSTLES' DOCTRINE....(because that is what the Word tells us to do....not man-made traditions, thoughts, & ideas and not man-made doctrines).....refer to the WORD!!"...

      Catholicism gives a hearty AMEN to that!

      All of that is VERY CATHOLIC! *thumbs up!*

      Delete
  53. No, it is VERY CHRISTIAN because in Acts they were called Christians first (in Antioch). They were NOT called Catholic. No where in the bible is a Christian or a follower of Christ called a Catholic. Catholic, matter of fact, is not in the bible. And we are Christians (followers of Christ) who FOLLOW & OBEY the Apostles' Doctrine. Again, there is no "if" we do or believe this or that. There should be no "if" argument, like you just stated to me above. There should be none of that. What the WORD SAYS, YOU DO! What the WORD SAYS, I DO! What the WORD SAYS, WE ALL, EVERY NATION IS SUPPOSE TO DO! There should be no "if" argument/debate concerning what we are to follow in the WORD. Follow the Word, don't argue/debate about it....and it should be a period after. Either you are going to believe or not. I'm stating that if you are saved truly and have His Spirit dwelling in you, then obviously you will STAND for the truth and say "yea" or "nay" according to the Word and not come up with all these "if then" arguments, seemingly to glorify self or to esteem something else greater than God and His Word.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Paula.

      I presume that you believe in the Bible, yes? And yet the Bible is not in the Bible.

      Nor is the word Trinity!

      So it's not really a problem for words to not be in the Bible, like Catholic or Bible or Trinity. We believe in them nontheless, right?

      Delete
    2. As far as your "there should be no 'if' we do or believe this or that", well, that's contrary to the Bible!

      The concept of "if we do or believe this or that" is found ALL OVER THE BIBLE!

      https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=if+you+believe&qs_version=NABRE

      Delete
    3. Regarding your comment: "What the WORD SAYS, YOU DO! What the WORD SAYS, I DO! What the WORD SAYS, WE ALL, EVERY NATION IS SUPPOSE TO DO! "...

      Catholics give a hearty AMEN! to that!

      Delete
  54. There is no "if" for the truth. There is no "if this", "if that"....as the old saying is, "it is what it is"!! GOD SPOKE IT AND HE LEFT YOU TO BELIEVE IT!!! That's it! Period! (Except you be reprobates)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Let me ask you a few questions...does the Catholic Church baptize or Christian infants?? If so, where does it state that in the bible?? Does the Catholic Church baptize people by complete water immersion or does the Catholic Church baptize people by sprinkling water on their heads or forehead?? If the Catholic Church baptize people by sprinkling, where is it stated in the bible?? Does the the Catholic Church accept gay/lesbian marriages and will perform one or do they accept homosexual relationships as "okay"?? If so, where does it state that in the bible concerning homosexuality is okay?? Does the Catholic Church accept adultery or think it's okay to "overlook" it?? What about accepting fornication?? What about divorcing and re-marriage...marrying someone else while your spouse is still alive?? Do the Catholic Church accept these practices as "okay"?? If so, where does it star these things as being "okay" and "acceptable" in the bible?? These are some questions that have been on my mind and finally I get a chance to ask a real Catholic...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where does it state that we are to baptize infants in the Bible?

      It's right after the verse that says we have to find everything we do and believe in the Bible!

      *smile!*

      You see, Paula, you've been duped into believing a man-made tradition that says that everything we believe has to be in the Bible.

      You can read Genesis through Revelation, and you'll never find that in a single page.

      The Bible is the Word of God, and everything in it is inspired, but that doesn't mean that everything we believe has to be found in the Bible.

      That's a man-made tradition!

      Delete
    2. *Does the Catholic Church baptize people by complete water immersion or does the Catholic Church baptize people by sprinkling water on their heads or forehead?*

      The Catholic Church permits both, immersion and sprinkling.

      *Does the the Catholic Church accept gay/lesbian marriages and will perform one or do they accept homosexual relationships as "okay"?? *

      No, the CC does not perform same-sex marriages and views homosexuality as intrinsically disordered.


      *Does the Catholic Church accept adultery or think it's okay to "overlook" it?? What about accepting fornication??*

      Adultery and fornication are mortal sins in the CC

      *What about divorcing and re-marriage...marrying someone else while your spouse is still alive?? *

      No Catholic priest will marry someone who's divorced, unless there has been an annulment.

      Delete
  56. Also you keep implying that certain things "is very Catholic" and you give a thumbs up to it.....but first, the truth "is very Apostolic"!! Not Catholic! First of all, Jesus, Himself, was an Apostle (Hebrews 3:1)!! The Word stated in Acts 2:42 that the Apostles, whom Jesus sent and gave instructions to, in which they carried out, CONTINUED STEADFASTLY IN THE APOSTLES' DOCTRINE!! There is NO OTHER DOCTRINE whereby we must follow!! No "Baptist Doctrine", No "Methodist Doctrine", No "Buddhist Doctrine", No "Catholic Doctrine", No "AME Doctrine", No "Islamic Doctrine", No "Lutheran Doctrine", No "Presbyterian Doctrine", No "Mormon Doctrine", No "Jehovah Witness Doctrine", and all the other "doctrines" that are circulating out here. There is ONLY ONE DOCTRINE stated in the bible for us to follow! ~~~Nevertheless, I believe I have done the will of my Father by witnessing concerning the baptism, and as the other witnesses on your blogspot have attested to it as well, thus "...because they seeing, see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (verse 15) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them (Matt. 13:13, 15). ONLY THE BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME IS TO BE FOLLOWED (Acts 2:38 and other instances in the book of Acts where people were being baptized)...because "NEITHER IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER: FOR THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN, WHERBY WE MUST BE SAVED (Acts 4:12)!! Thus, the Apostles fulfilled what Jesus told them to do in Matthew 28:19! Let me also point out that the deceiver, the Anti-Christ, Satan...does not want anyone to do anything in Jesus' name, because he knows that it is power in the NAME OF JESUS!! He will try to deceive, trick, blot out, and confuse people to get them as far away from the name of Jesus!! He doesn't care about you going to a church, just as long as you don't get baptize in Jesus' name! There are even scriptures showing this...(Acts 4:5-21) this is where the council and others, THREATEN Peter and John that they SPEAK HENCEFORTH TO NO MAN IN THIS NAME (meaning Jesus' name) and they COMMANDED THEM NOT TO SPEAK AT ALL NOR TO TEACH IN THE NAME OF JESUS (verses 17 & 18). Also in Acts 5:25-32, the council again, along with the high priest stated to them saying, " Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine,~~~Thus, I speak as Peter and the rest of the Apostles here in Acts 4:19 & 5:29 "WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN!" (If someone teaches/preach any other doctrine other than what is given, I'm not obeying him!)...Romans 16:17 state to..."mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them" (who wrote Romans?? Paul wrote the book of Romans, in which he {Romans 1:1} was called to be an Apostle who believed and obeyed the Apostles' Doctrine from the book of Acts)....As well as 2 John 9-10 that states "whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (again, I ask, who wrote the book of 2 John?? The Apostle John wrote it who believed and obeyed just like Peter & Paul according to Acts. They gave no other DOCTRINE! No other doctrine is established, stated, nor implied from Matthew through Revelations whereby we must follow! All other "man-made doctrines" we're established or created by a "man", but it was not established by God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are absolutely correct. The entire kerygma was given Once For All, to the Catholic Church. And to the degree that your pastor's teachings agree with the Church, we say *thumbs up!*.

      But there are many who twist the Word of God...and that is why God established an authority to tell those who have departed: you are misinterpreting Scripture.

      And that authority is His Body, the Catholic Church.

      After all, wasn't it the Catholic Church who had the authority to tell you what belongs in the New Testament? You wouldn't know that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistle of Clement isn't....except that you defer to the authority of the CC.

      Delete
  57. I pray for you to "see, hear, and believe" in the Apostles' Doctrine that was delivered to you in the scriptures and not man-made thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and opinions! Stand on what the Word states and not someone's interpretation of what they want it to be or to "glory" in themselves because of "itching ears"..."For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned into fables" (2 Timothy 4:3-4)... Thus, "...the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30). (Notice a few verses back in verse 19 where they asked "...what this new doctrine whereof thou speakest is?"...this is that SAME DOCTRINE from the onset where Paul addressed to the men of Athens on Mars' Hill...thus Paul was concluding his speech to the men of Athens to repent...God is not winking at or "overlooking" ignorance now!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct that we should stand on what the Word states! Amen!

      Delete
  58. One more thing...the "if/then" argument you stated to me....it's like this, "IF" you are SAVED, BAPTIZED IN JESUS' NAME, FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, "THEN" there should be no debates nor arguments for the doctrine that's written in the bible (not man-made doctrines and the like)! GOD SPOKE IT, HE SAID IT, AND THAT SETTLES IT!! End of discussion, UNLESS we are talking good about the word, edifying one another in the Word, but NOT debates and/or arguments and/or strife about the Word! God spoke it and He left it to us to BELIEVE IT & OBEY IT!! That's it! It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct if you mean there should be no quarreling over the Word of God.

      However, the Bible commands that we provide APOLOGIA for the hope that is in us. Commands it, Paula.

      Delete
  59. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Catholic_Encyclopedia,_volume_2.djvu/309. I have a question? Which one is the father because it says in the Bible that the holy ghost conceived Mary.next question is a ghost not a departed spirit of a once alive person?didn't Jesus die? Didn't he give up the ghost? If he was his own father he would actually have the right to say if you have seen me you have seen the father.John 4:24 explains who God is.Hebrews 1 explains how many images there is to God's deity.jehova God was a spirit.in Genesis 1 God's spirit moved on the face of the waters.Ephesians 2:18 says through him(being Jesus) we bath have access to one spirit To the father.I can't find one scripture where the holy ghost ever spoke.neither can I find Trinity in the Bible.yes it does infact say father,son, and holy spirit but not Trinity.the Jews only belive in one being not three.didn't Christianity start with Jews.Peter and the other 10 were infact Jews excluding apostals Paul.the Jews never quit believing in the same God they just didn't except Christ as the Messiah.which was foretold that jehova God would do through the bloodline of David.the Trinity contradicts everything about the Scriptures.we are made in the image of God.if God is three where is the the other two of me? I'm made in his image.if God manifest himself in spirit form in three ways that still makes him one spirit like in John 4:24,and Hebrews 1.it's like a fireman,a fire truck,and a firemans water hose.they aren't three persons just other attributes that the fireman uses to be a fireman.but not three people.why is it called the Roman Catholic Church if it was a Jewish church in Origen. Emporer constatine is the the one that changed all this.he wasn't even a Christian.he didn't get baptized untill his death bed.why would anyone take this chance.read your history the Romans feed Christians to the lions in the arenas.there's even been a study on the bones of Christians from the catacombs.they have found scevered heads and snawed on bones by lions.Paul warned the church of others that would come preaching another gospel.history tell that all of the apostals were killed off.then fell great persacution on the church.untill Pope constatine became ruler.some scollars have proven that there's been manipulation of Scriptures to make the Trinity agreeable with church doctrine.it is a man made theology that tries to explain who God is but it has many faults that has holes in it.it really doesn't make sense.three people make one God.it mahes three.just like the pagan God's of Rome and Greece. If baptism in Jesus name removes sins acts 2:39acts 4:12 says neither is salvation in any other name.if that's true your sins can't be removed or forgiven if not used.that's just a scary thought to gamble with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Unknown. To answer your questions:
      -"Which one is the father"--the father is the Creator, the first Person of the Holy Trinity.

      -"Is a ghost not a departed spirit of a once alive person?"--not necessarily. A ghost, used interchangeably with "spirit", is simply a way to articulate the immaterial 3rd Person of the Holy Trinity.

      "If he was his own father"--not sure why you ask this? No rational Christian has ever said that Jesus was his own father!

      Delete
    2. Regarding your comments here: "John 4:24 explains who God is.Hebrews 1 explains how many images there is to God's deity.jehova God was a spirit.in Genesis 1 God's spirit moved on the face of the waters.Ephesians 2:18 says through him(being Jesus) we bath have access to one spirit"--AMEN! You are very Catholic with all you say here!

      Delete
    3. "I can't find one scripture where the holy ghost ever spoke."--Correct. But, of course, neither you nor I get all of our beliefs from the Bible, so we don't need to "find one Scripture" where the Holy Spirit speaks, right?

      Remember, you've been quoting Hebrews, but you can't offer one verse which says that the Book of Hebrews is the Word of God...so...you've been submitting to the authority of men to tell you that Hebrews is the Word of God. That is, you didn't get the information that Hebrews is theopneustos from the Bible. You got that information from Catholic bishops in the 4th century.

      Delete
    4. "the Jews only believe in one being not three"--that is correct. And so do Catholics. God is One Being. Not three.

      Delete
  60. Very good stuff. Love it! Tertullian was an early Christian apologist and spokeman for the Trinity joined the Montanist who baptized in Jesus Name. The Catholic Inquisition killed mostly Jesus Named believers. There is but One God, and his the father, the son and the holy spirit and his name is? JESUS. Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." and that name is? JESUS!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Anonymous.

      Regarding Tertullian--he became a heretic when he left the Catholic Church to join the Montanists.

      As far as the "Catholic Inquisition killing mostly Jesus Named Believers", well, that's not confirmed by any kind of documentation. I could just as well say that Jesus Named Believers killed millions of Trinitarians.

      As far as the rest of your post, you are very Catholic in all you say here: "There is but One God, and his the father, the son and the holy spirit and his name is? JESUS. Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." and that name is? JESUS!!!"

      Delete
    2. Thank you...good stuff....keeps me studying!!!

      Delete