are there any Oneness Pentecostal Calvinists out there?

[narnia59]

So now you are calling the Catholics liars? And you got it right even though the apostles and the rest of the early church got it wrong?

If you want to continue to perpetuate a fake quote, that's on you. Good day.

 

[Dave L]

If you want to continue to perpetuate a fake quote, that's on you. Good day.

You are pretty bold calling the Catholic's liars in this matter and rewriting history to suit your opinions.

 

[The Liturgist]

So now you are calling the Catholics liars? And you got it right even though the apostles and the rest of the early church got it wrong?

No, what he is saying is the quote you attributed to the Catholic Encyclopedia, isn’t actually in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It doesn’t say what it you claim it does. Look for yourself: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism

By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official publication of the Roman Catholic Church or the Vatican, in contrast to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and is also 110 years out of date.

 

[The Liturgist]

You are pretty bold calling the Catholic's liars in this matter and rewriting history to suit your opinions.

He is not calling Catholics liars - he is a Roman Catholic. He is trying to tell you the excerpt you quoted, allegedly from the Catholic Encyclopedia, isn’t actually in there! You can look yourself and see.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You are pretty bold calling the Catholic's liars in this matter and rewriting history to suit your opinions.

It's in pretty poor taste to knowingly twist what someone is saying in order to avoid actually addressing the point.

Your posts are degenerating into nothing more than ad hominem remarks and trollish behavior.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[narnia59]

You are pretty bold calling the Catholic's liars in this matter and rewriting history to suit your opinions.

As mentioned, I am merely pointing out that the quote you provided cited to the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't valid.

If you want extra-Biblical sources you might consider the Didache that is dated to approximately the time of the Gospels and whose instructions for Baptism are:

Concerning Baptism. And concerning first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Or you might consider Pope Clement I, who is mentioned in Scripture (Philippians 4:3) and writing in the first century refers to the "threefold invocation" that occurs at Baptism.

Those are legitimate sources.

 

[Dave L]

As mentioned, I am merely pointing out that the quote you provided cited to the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't valid.

If you want extra-Biblical sources you might consider the Didache that is dated to approximately the time of the Gospels and whose instructions for Baptism are:

Concerning Baptism. And concerning first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Or you might consider Pope Clement I, who is mentioned in Scripture (Philippians 4:3) and writing in the first century refers to the "threefold invocation" that occurs at Baptism.

Those are legitimate sources.

You are denying what is written by the Catholics in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Imagine how most Churches got it wrong. Especially the Baptists (I'm a trinitarian Baptist baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) yet I can put to shame all churches for the following of tradition instead of the scriptures.

 

[Dave L]

It's in pretty poor taste to knowingly twist what someone is saying in order to avoid actually addressing the point.

Your posts are degenerating into nothing more than ad hominem remarks and trollish behavior.

-CryptoLutheran

Learn how to baptize according to the Apostles and then get back with me.

 

[narnia59]

You are denying what is written by the Catholics in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Imagine how most Churches got it wrong. Especially the Baptists (I'm a trinitarian Baptist baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) yet I can put to shame all churches for the following of tradition instead of the scriptures.

Fine, provide a reference that shows that quote is actually in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here's the link:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home

 

[ViaCrucis]

You are denying what is written by the Catholics in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Imagine how most Churches got it wrong. Especially the Baptists (I'm a trinitarian Baptist baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) yet I can put to shame all churches for the following of tradition instead of the scriptures.

Deuteronomy 5:20

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

Deuteronomy 5:20

-CryptoLutheran

So you are doing this exact same thing rather than bend to the truth?

 

[Dave L]

Fine, provide a reference that shows that quote is actually in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here's the link:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home

Think about this for a while.

“(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” Acts 8:16 (KJV 1900)

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Acts 10:48 (KJV 1900)

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 19:5 (KJV 1900)

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38 (KJV 1900)

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Romans 6:3 (KJV 1900)


The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

What edition?
What print?
Sources. Give sources.

Because here is the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, pages 262-263
The Catholic encyclopedia; an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic Church : Herbermann, Charles George, 1840-1916 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I've just read page 263 of the 2nd Volume of the 1907 Catholic Encyclopdedia, and the quote you provided isn't there.

Instead, this is what I see:

"The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of Christ", either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had .solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts, xix) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: "In whom then were you baptized?" This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them." - 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 263

So, to repeat: what edition? What print? Provide your source.

If you're only response to this is to accuse me of calling Catholics liars, then please don't bother responding.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[narnia59]

So you are doing this exact same thing rather than bend to the truth?

No, because he doesn't continue to perpetuate a quote that's been shown to be false.

 

[Dave L]

No, because he doesn't continue to perpetuate a quote that's been shown to be false.

You are denying the clear print of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Besides, scripture proves you don't understand the early church position.

 

[Dave L]

What edition?
What print?
Sources. Give sources.

Because here is the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, pages 262-263
The Catholic encyclopedia; an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic Church : Herbermann, Charles George, 1840-1916 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I've just read page 263 of the 2nd Volume of the 1907 Catholic Encyclopdedia, and the quote you provided isn't there.

Instead, this is what I see:

"The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of Christ", either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had .solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts, xix) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: "In whom then were you baptized?" This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them." - 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 263

So, to repeat: what edition? What print? Provide your source.

If you're only response to this is to accuse me of calling Catholics liars, then please don't bother responding.

-CryptoLutheran

Scripture proves you are wrong on Baptism. How much more do you need?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Scripture proves you are wrong on Baptism. How much more do you need?

You made a claim about what the Catholic Encyclopedia says.
Now back it up.
Provide your source.

I can be wrong all day long about baptism, that doesn't address my question.

What is your source for your quote?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

You made a claim about what the Catholic Encyclopedia says.
Now back it up.
Provide your source.

I can be wrong all day long about baptism, that doesn't address my question.

What is your source for your quote?

-CryptoLutheran

Do your own search and prove it isn't there.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do your own search and prove it isn't there.

Already did that.

So, let me repeat myself: Provide your source(s).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave L]

Already did that.

So, let me repeat myself: Provide your source(s).

-CryptoLutheran

Did you read the whole thing? Only then you can prove it isn't there. But why waste the time? The book of Acts proves mostly ALL churches wrong. in this matter.