Protestant asks a question

[marineboy]

in one of the other threads the topic got off track… one of the members, who is Protestant, asks what happens if Oral tradition conflicts or contradicts scripture–i would argue that it never does–so josiah ur gonan hanve to please give a specific example of where u think oral tradition and scripture contradict

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

marineboy:

in one of the other threads the topic got off track… one of the members, who is Protestant, asks what happens if Oral tradition conflicts or contradicts scripture–i would argue that it never does–so josiah ur gonan hanve to please give a specific example of where u think oral tradition and scripture contradict

I’d agree with you marineboy. Scripture and Tradition can’t contradict one another since their common source is the holy Spirit who cannot contradict himself.

One thing that your Protestant friend may not have considered is that ALL Christians, even himself, hold to some Traditions that aren’t found in scripture, such as the Tradition of sola Scriptura and the Tradition of “born again” meaning “accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior”.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[josiah]

I believe the biggest contradiction between Tradition and Scripture is illustrated in the practice of infant baptism (which is really an issue of belief before baptism or baptism then belief).

I believe that ACTS 8:36-38 is the most explicit passage in scripture regarding a condition for baptism.
To say that there are other scriptures which refute this is contradictory. The result is that we no longer have an inerrant text.

(Act 2:38) Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(Act 2:41) Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. And the same day there were added about three thousand souls.

(Act 8:12) But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women .(no children mentioned here).

(Act 8:13) Then Simon himself believed also, and being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing miracles and mighty works happening, he was amazed.

Act 8:36-38 (36) And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from** being baptized**?(37) Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, it is lawful. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.(38)** And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him**.

I see a pattern here. Belief seems to be a prerequisite here. Phillip explicitly said belief needs to come first. Acts is a historical account of went on in the early church. I see this a contradiction between Tradition and Scripture.

Peace
Josiah

 

[TNT]

josiah Ref Protantism: A heresy #167

Rom 10:9 Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the

dead, you shall be saved. From the Church of Baptized Saved:

Mark:16:16: He that believeth and

is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned1Pet:3:21: The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us

From the Church of Calling His Name Saved

Acts:2:21: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord

shall be saved. From the Church of The Saved in Hope:

Rom:8:24: For we are** saved**

by hope

From the Church of Saved in Sober Childearing:

1Tim:2:15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved

in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety .

Gal 2:15-16 … a man is not justified by works of the Law

, …For all flesh will not be justified by works of law.

Justified means acceptable or vindicated.

And Works of the LAW means Works of the Mosaic Law, including circumcision which is the representative Work of the Mosaic Law. It has nothing to do with GOOD WORKS, lest we throw James into the fireplace.

My friend. I don’t have tradition. I just have scripture because

2Ti 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed, …may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work.
From the Church of the Perfect by Patience:

James:1:4: But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

From the Church of The Perfect by Works in Faith:

Jame:2:22: Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and** by works** was faith made perfect?

Quote:

Q: If all scripture is able

to make me perfect (or thoroughly equipped in other versions), then why do I need Catholic Traditions**?**
Because:
1Cor:1:10: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
And:
2Thes:2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2Thes:3:6: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Q: So, before I was able to read or understand Scripture, was I saved or not?
Q:If I have a retarded child not able to understand Scripture or even to read it, are they saved or not; Perfect or not?

From the Church of the Perfect in Giving all to the Poor:

Math:19:21: Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

 

[TNT]

Continued from #4: For:josiah Ref Protantism: A heresy #167
Q: I do not believe that Hebrews belongs in the Scriptures, same for Philemon. I do not see anywhere that they reek of Divine Inspiration. Would you please prove to me that they ARE Divinely Inspired and that they must be contained in the 27 Books of Inspired Scripture?
Q: Why must there be 27 and not 25 or 28 books in your NT?

 

[TNT]

josiah:

I believe the biggest contradiction between Tradition and Scripture is illustrated in the practice of infant baptism (which is really an issue of belief before baptism or baptism then belief).

Since not all are not baptized as infants, I would say that the biggest contradiction is:

Going to worship on Sunday, since *all *NT Christians follow this in contradiction to the Commandment to Keep Holy the SABBATH, which is no where overturned in your bible.
In fact the early bible accounts indicated that the new Christians attended the synogogue which would be on the SABBATH.
Where is there a command to give up the SABBATH?

 

[kepha1]

I believe the biggest contradiction between Tradition and Scripture is illustrated in the practice of infant baptism (which is really an issue of belief before baptism or baptism then belief).

Infant baptism is a practice, which began right at the beginning and occurred long before there was a bible. It is inferred in the bible and was taught and practiced by the early Church. There is no competition or contradiction with scripture. No Scripture says NOT to baptize infants. Baptism removes original sin. Original sin is a doctrine taught by the Jews, the Jesus and the Apostles and their successors who taught the same thing for 2000 years.

We have sinned in Adam, we inherited original sin and not by informed consent. (or conscious decision) Therefore belief (for non-adults) as a requirement is totally unbiblical. Informed consent is not necessary to remove sin that we acquired without informed consent. Many Protestants have abandoned entirely the doctrine of original sin as taught by Moses, Jesus, the Apostles and their successors that they continued to teach for 2000 years.

I believe that ACTS 8:36-38 is the most explicit passage in scripture regarding a condition for baptism.

I think you have accepted a man-made reformist tradition that contradicts scripture. That is your belief, not that of Jesus, the Apostles, and their successors. These verses make no explicit reference as informed consent being a condition for baptism. It is true that informed consent TO BE BAPTIZED occurred, but that does not mean informed consent was an absolute condition.

Look further up in Acts. 8. Philip is invited by the Ethiopian to explain the scriptures (Isaiaha) he was reading because he didn’t understand them. Philip, a representative and commissioned teacher of the Catholic Church, and in full accordance with Sacred Tradition, teaches him. That, sir, is Sacred Tradition in action that you claim contradicts scripture.

To say that there are other scriptures which refute this is contradictory. The result is that we no longer have an inerrant text.

Since you yourself have to admit your interpretation is fallible, you cannot logically hold anyone to any belief

(Act 2:38)

Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now what does “every one of you” mean? Does it mean “every one of you except the infants, the retarded, the senile, because you can’t make a conscious choice, and have to go to hell???”

(Act 2:41)

Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. And the same day there were added about three thousand souls.

Why does it say “souls” and not “who were old enough to make a decision”??? Or, only men and women??? Look at it again. It does say “souls”, doesn’t it??

Are you implying that infants don’t have souls? Please provide a verse that says infants don’t have souls, so that you can justify your scriptural contortionism.

 

[kepha1]

(Act 8:12)

But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women .(no children mentioned here).

Luke is making a unity of gender, he is not talking about age requirements. He says both men and women for a reason, and age has nothing to do with these verses. Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12). Circumcision was for men only. The Gospel message makes the Old Dispensation wider, elevating women to a higher place, and salvation for the Gentiles as well. Your theology makes Christianity narrower and exclusive. Bible alone theory denigrates the Bible to legalistic proof-texting, and creates a false dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition, and pits the Bible against the Church from whence it came. Sola scriptura is a man-made tradition that was never heard of until the 15th century, which is the root of your argument.

Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12). How old is a Jew when he is circumcised? Is eight days old unscriptural??

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

 

[kepha1]

(Act 8:13)

Then Simon himself believed also, and being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing miracles and mighty works happening, he was amazed.

Adults get baptized every year in the Catholic Church. This verse has nothing to do with the topic.

Act 8:36-38 (36) And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from

being baptized?(37) Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, it is lawful. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.(38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.

I see a pattern here. Belief seems to be a prerequisite here. Phillip explicitly said belief needs to come first. Acts is a historical account of went on in the early church. I see this a contradiction between Tradition and Scripture. Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. Born Again in Water Baptism1.2 II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic1.3 III. Infant Baptism1.4 IV. Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion1.5 V. Original Sin2 Tradition / Church Fathers2.1 I. “Born Again” Means Water Baptism2.2 II. Infant Baptism2.3 III. Original...

www.scripturecatholic.com

Philip, a representative of the Church, teaching the Ethiopian is a Sacred Tradition. Please explain to me why the scriptures were not self-attesting to the Ethiopian, contrary to man-made reformist tradition.

Please explain why he, an educated court official, could not understand or interpret for himself the meaning of Isaiah, contrary to man-made reformist tradition.

“For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ.”

Do you believe this to be a “contradiction between Tradition and Scripture” as well? Do you think because it is in Scripture, it is not a Tradition? No, they are complimantary and inseparable. It’s too bad so many have been influenced by the man-made traditions that separated them.

Lastly, sir, the Bible itself is Tradition. It came from Tradition. If every Bible on the planet were to be destroyed, the Word of God would continue as the LIVING DIVINE TRADITION in the Church.

kepha1

 

[jphilapy]

Shouldn’t this thread be called 'Does the bible have any Infant Baptism passage?’ Oh wait there is already a thread like that:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=344744

Jeff

 

[Church_Militant]

Have you not read in the NT that Baptism is compared to circumcision? Now, If the jews circumcised their males on the 8th day and that certainly wasn’t by profession of faith except by the parents as they commited themselves to raise the child in his faith then why is that same sort of commitment wrong for Christians, since “whole households” were clearly baptised in the NT. (See the Philippian jailer, just for instance).

God obviously honored the commitment of those Jewish parents, and in fact commanded that they do that. (That only just now dawned on me…Boy am I dumb. )

Also…it goes all the way back to the first post apostolic disciples since St. Polycarp tells his executors that he has been a Christian for 86 years and will not trade that temporay fire for an eternal one by renouncing his faith. (He was burned alive for his faith…singing hymns of praise to God.) He was 86 years old at the time and that means he was baptised as a baby. He’s about as first century as ya can get Brother.

I don’t see this conflict.
Pax vobiscum and may you have a blessed and happy Christmas.

 

[kepha1]

Going to worship on Sunday, since *all *

NT Christians follow this in contradiction to the Commandment to Keep Holy the SABBATH, which is no where overturned in your bible ……….

Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

scripturecatholic.com/sunday_worship.html

 

[Church_Militant]

TNT:

Since not all are not baptized as infants, I would say that the biggest contradiction is:

Going to worship on Sunday, since *all *NT Christians follow this in contradiction to the Commandment to Keep Holy the SABBATH, which is no where overturned in your bible.
In fact the early bible accounts indicated that the new Christians attended the synogogue which would be on the SABBATH.
Where is there a command to give up the SABBATH?

Are you kidding? It’s right there in your Bible big as life eternal!
Luke 24:1 and following “…on the first day of the week…”
John 20:19 The day of the Resurrection, which what Christians celebrate NOT the Jewish sabbath.
ACTS 20:7 & 1st CORINTHIANS 16:2 both show that the Christians ceased worshipping on Saturday since they were no longer Jews. Bear in mind that both these last 2 passages were written after the council of Jerusalem had responded to the Judaisers heresy.
Revelation 1:10 Note that St. John (the last of the Apostles to die) says plainly here that he was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, which was Sunday, not the sabbath.

There’s no conflict here. Those who continue to observe the law and are not Jews are in error according to the scripture.

 

[marineboy]

josiah please the passages u cite are referring to adults…of course they have to beleive first… bottom line isre isn’t super clear either way… so??? this is another reason why sola scriptura is a stupid point of view that has led to thousands of different protestant interpretations of things just like this…wake up!!! and come home!!!

 

[TNT]

Church Militant:

Are you kidding? It’s right there in your Bible big as life eternal!
ACTS 20:77 And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight. This statement was to jphilapy regarding the lack of infant bapt. testamony.

They did meet on that particular Sunday, just as all did on EVERY day:
ACTS 2:46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart… Biblically, the verse is not relevant to the SABBATH. As you can see, they did the same thing every day.

1st CORINTHIANS 16:2 both show that the Christians ceased

worshipping on Saturday since they were no longer Jews.16:2 On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.
Talks about collecting contributions for Paul. Says not a thing about worshiping only on Sunday, and the SABBATH is out. Paul was not even planning to be there to worship. Biblically, the verse is irrelevant to canceling the SABBATH.

Revelation 1:10 Note that St. John (the last of the Apostles to die) says plainly here that he was in the spirit on the Lord’s day

, which was Sunday, not the sabbath.

So, being in the spirit happens only on Sunday? It says nothing about keeping Holy the Lord’s day.
You may have distant implications, but no explicit change was commanded. Far from it.

 

[TNT]

jphilapy:

Shouldn’t this thread be called 'Does the bible have any Infant Baptism passage?'

No, actually, I have lots of questions above your post, including when was I saved in infancy. They address your many other affirmations and questions.
So many questions for **Jphilapy **and josiah. Hope they didn’t go MIA.

 

[TNT]

Church Militant:

There’s no conflict here. Those who continue to observe the law and are not Jews are in error according to the scripture.
Wasn’t the 10 Commandments

unmentioned until Moses received them as part of the Mosaic Law?

Are you thowing them all out now?

 

[vern_humphrey]

josiah:

I see a pattern here. Belief seems to be a prerequisite here. Phillip explicitly said belief needs to come first. Acts is a historical account of went on in the early church. I see this a contradiction between Tradition and Scripture.

Peace
Josiah

No, what you see is the first generation of Christians . All Christians in those days were converts – there were no cradle Catholics-- no infants had yet been born to those already baptized.

Infant baptism came about for several reasons – not the least was the desire of parents to have their children assured of heaven in an era of very high infant mortality. Another driving force was the desire to show that infants were truly whole people in an era where infant exposure was routinely practiced.

Note that Paul attests to the baptism of those who cannot be said to be believers in the conventional sense:

1 Corinthians, 15,29
13 14 Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

 

[josiah]

marineboy:

josiah please the passages u cite are referring to adults…of course they have to beleive first…

Thank you for proving my point Marineboy. Belief is a prerequisite to baptism. How can an infant, who lacks the mental faculties, listen to, comprehend, and accept the gospel message!

 

[vern_humphrey]

josiah:

Thank you for proving my point Marineboy. Belief is a prerequisite to baptism. How can an infant, who lacks the mental faculties, listen to, comprehend, and accept the gospel message!

But not for infants – parents and God parents stand in for them, and pledge to raise them as Catholics.

Remember, Early Christians even baptized for the dead.