These writings say they baptized in the words Jesus stated in Matthew 28:19
I am not sure why some wish to quibble about this. So, if anyone wishes to explain to me why,I would appreciate that. And, as I said, this really doesn't have anything to do with the Catholic Church as it did not exist in the early centuries as a universal authority based from Rome
There is actually a reference to the Catholic Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch in a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 110 A.D. Acts was written around 70-90 A.D. by St. Luke. We can't know for certain if Matt. 28:19 was written differently at that time or not, but what we do know is all of the other scripture related to the subject of baptismal formula, and all examples of baptisms in the Bible, contradict the trinity formula.
I replied to your other comment on this further down for more details.
I know that the church was considered catholic during the apostolic times and in the early centuries such as the writing you indicated. This is a term that just meant universal in referring to the church of Christ. This was not the Roman Catholic Church. It was just a term used to describe the oneness of the church in Christ. The roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until the 5th or 6th century. In the time of the apostles and shortly thereafter, (which your writing of 110.A.D. falls into) the apostles appointed bishops to head churches throughout the region as churches were planted by the apostles. There were many bishops and these bishops wrote many letters and documents to churches and other bishops. So many of these bishops were contemporaries of the apostles and appointed by the apostles. I really doubt the apostles would appoint someone who was not sound in doctrine, as that is a requirement mentioned in several Scriptures. They practiced what the apostles and disciples of Jesus (who followed Jesus in His lifetime) taught them.
I understand that there are some who are unwilling to accept anything that rings of "Catholic". There is so much that can be said about the errors and abuses of the Roman Catholic Church (500 A.D. to present) and it is important for people to know of them. However, we must differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church and the church of the preceding centuries that was referred to as "catholic". The two are not the same. In the early church centuries before the Roman Catholic Church came to be, bishops were all equal and they would meet together to consider teachings that were thought to be heretical and make statements concerning these teachings along with other matters that arose from the persecution of Christians and divergence of practices among churches. They did not demand that all church fellowships be the same during this time period. There was not a central government of the church at that time.
I just rely on scripture for the final word on everything. If Catholic doctrines lined up with scripture perfectly, it wouldn't be an issue. The main question was about the baptismal formula.
"Why and when did the early church deviate from calling the name of JESUS over the person who was being baptized as in the Book of Acts?"
I don't know that we can know exactly when that change was made, but what we can know, and prove, is that the Bible supports baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ more so than the trinity formula.
All issues should be reckoned on the testimony of more than one witness.
"... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
2 Cor. 13:1
Deut. 17:6; 19:15
When we only have one verse in scripture that 'appears' to make the case for a trinity baptismal formula, but we have many verses to support the Name of Jesus formula, we are obligated to go with the case that has more weight of evidence in God's Word. God's Word carries much weight among Christians and it is very important that we seek the Truth from the majority of scripture on any case.
The Apostles would not have done 'their own' thing in this regard; that is IMPOSSIBLE. So we either have a translation error in Matt. 28:19, a misunderstanding of what Jesus was actually saying there, or the verse has been changed. It does not follow scripture at all.
If I was given a choice whether I would want to be baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ or into the generic father, son and holy ghost formula, I would choose to have my Savior's Name spoken over my baptism. After all, I want to be 'in' Jesus Christ, specifically.
Can you site any evidence supporting the claim that the father son Holy Spirit Trinity baptism was changed by the Catholic Church? Or is it merely speculation and a rumor?
The practice of the early church at the end of the first century (just following the apostles) was to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and at other times, as in Acts, in the name of Jesus. so, the Catholic Church did not come into existence until 500 or 600 A.D. Therefore, the Catholic Church did not change the way people were baptized. The early church followed the instructions of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 and this practice has remained the norm across the centuries. For me, I just can't argue with the instructions of our Lord Jesus in Scripture.
If The God of all the universe can hang worlds on nothing (gravity) and keep them there, then He can certainly give us a trustworthy instruction manual (Bible).
Attacking the words of Jesus and the Bible, is just another trick of the devil to lead people into false doctrine or "doctrines of demons".
Beware of sheep in wolves clothing.
I pray that I never bring accusation against Gods holy book. I'm going to trust the words of Jesus himself. I trust that if he did not say Matthew 28:19 then he would never have allowed it to be in the bible in the first place. Either I trust him or I don't. Either he is lord of all or not lord at all.
God bless us all with childlike faith. We are not ignorant of the devils devices. If he can get us to believe that the word of God is fallible then he can destroy our trust in God. I know we are in the end times we need to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We need to test every spirit to see whether it be of the Lord.
Couldn't tell you exactly when, but it is believed by many that the Catholic Church is responsible for changing the baptismal formula. We have one single solitary verse in scripture that states "father, son and holy ghost" in Matthew 28:19, but interestingly all of the descriptions of the actual baptismal events, in the chapters after, use the name of Jesus Christ.
Did Jesus really tell His disciples to do it one way and every one of them completely ignored His Command and did it differently for every baptism ever recorded after in the Bible? Or has somebody changed the verse in Matthew to read something that Jesus never spoke there?
It is a fact that there are no accounts of baptisms anywhere in scripture that use the Trinity formula of 'father, son and holy ghost.'
Everyone who is a believer has the Holy Spirit within them. He regenerates us and implants faith at the time of conversion so that we can assent to the truth of the gospel and believe in Jesus. therefore, every new believer has the Holy Spirit in them and the Spirit remains within a believer throughout their life of faith in Jesus and on into eternity.
One verse containing the words of Jesus is enough for me to believe that the apostles and disciples baptized thousands and thousands. And we do not know exactly how they did from Scripture. But we do know from accounts written by those close to the apostolic times, that they be
What we know, and can prove with scripture, is that there are zero examples of anybody being baptized into the trinity formula of father, son and holy ghost. And there are multiple examples of people being baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ.
On top of THAT, we have this:
"Be it known unto you all, and to all people of Israel, that by the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand before you whole. ... Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Acts 4:10, 12
Pretty strong words there by St. Luke on the subject. I refuse to believe that Luke, or any of the other disciples of Christ, completely ignored a command from Jesus' mouth about how to baptize. And they all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Do you wish to be right in the eyes of men, ... or do you want to be right in the eyes of God?
"... let God be true, but every man a liar; ..."
Romans 3:4
'father, son and holy ghost' isn't even a proper NAME. It's a general TITLE, and multiple titles at that. Matthew 28:19 does not follow logic, reason NOR scripture as a whole. We are to judge all teachers, as well as scripture itself, BY scripture. The Bible defines, confirms and justifies ITSELF.
In a court of law, the trinity doctrine for baptism would not be found legitimate at all.
In a court of law Mary the mother of Jesus would be jailed. The account of her pregnancy was also not logical.
In a court of law Jesus saying he was the son of God wasn't logical, apparently, and he was hung on a cross at Calvary. When did the Bible become about logic? I thought it was more about faith God does what he wants either you believe it or not.
Jesus set an EXAMPLE of baptism for us and all three (tri-unity) were there. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, all together, at the baptism. Jesus always led by example.
I am not seasoned in the word YET as are most of y'all, but I do know enough to know that the Bible says this;
Revelation 22:18
Revelation 22:19
With emphasis on revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I guess we will just have to differ on this because I do not wish to "x" out commands of Christ to fit a specific narrative about practices in the church we do not know about. Just because the book of Acts has a handful of examples of baptisms being done in Jesus name, we do not know the EXACT words the apostles used in these baptism, nor the practice of the other 12 apostles and hundreds of disciples from the Upper Room Pentecost, nor the leaders of the churches that were planted by the apostles. However, baptismal practices are reflected in the writings of the bishops the apostles appointed over these churches, so I will base my position on the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19, the silence of the epistle writers as to the exact words used in baptisms, and the witness of the writings of the bishops appointed by Paul and John and others. You can think what you wish. I do not wish to comnend on this matter any longer. Have a good day.
Anyway
These writings say they baptized in the words Jesus stated in Matthew 28:19
I am not sure why some wish to quibble about this. So, if anyone wishes to explain to me why,I would appreciate that. And, as I said, this really doesn't have anything to do with the Catholic Church as it did not exist in the early centuries as a universal authority based from Rome
I replied to your other comment on this further down for more details.
I know that the church was considered catholic during the apostolic times and in the early centuries such as the writing you indicated. This is a term that just meant universal in referring to the church of Christ. This was not the Roman Catholic Church. It was just a term used to describe the oneness of the church in Christ. The roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until the 5th or 6th century. In the time of the apostles and shortly thereafter, (which your writing of 110.A.D. falls into) the apostles appointed bishops to head churches throughout the region as churches were planted by the apostles. There were many bishops and these bishops wrote many letters and documents to churches and other bishops. So many of these bishops were contemporaries of the apostles and appointed by the apostles. I really doubt the apostles would appoint someone who was not sound in doctrine, as that is a requirement mentioned in several Scriptures. They practiced what the apostles and disciples of Jesus (who followed Jesus in His lifetime) taught them.
I understand that there are some who are unwilling to accept anything that rings of "Catholic". There is so much that can be said about the errors and abuses of the Roman Catholic Church (500 A.D. to present) and it is important for people to know of them. However, we must differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church and the church of the preceding centuries that was referred to as "catholic". The two are not the same. In the early church centuries before the Roman Catholic Church came to be, bishops were all equal and they would meet together to consider teachings that were thought to be heretical and make statements concerning these teachings along with other matters that arose from the persecution of Christians and divergence of practices among churches. They did not demand that all church fellowships be the same during this time period. There was not a central government of the church at that time.
I just rely on scripture for the final word on everything. If Catholic doctrines lined up with scripture perfectly, it wouldn't be an issue. The main question was about the baptismal formula.
"Why and when did the early church deviate from calling the name of JESUS over the person who was being baptized as in the Book of Acts?"
I don't know that we can know exactly when that change was made, but what we can know, and prove, is that the Bible supports baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ more so than the trinity formula.
All issues should be reckoned on the testimony of more than one witness.
"... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
2 Cor. 13:1
Deut. 17:6; 19:15
When we only have one verse in scripture that 'appears' to make the case for a trinity baptismal formula, but we have many verses to support the Name of Jesus formula, we are obligated to go with the case that has more weight of evidence in God's Word. God's Word carries much weight among Christians and it is very important that we seek the Truth from the majority of scripture on any case.
The Apostles would not have done 'their own' thing in this regard; that is IMPOSSIBLE. So we either have a translation error in Matt. 28:19, a misunderstanding of what Jesus was actually saying there, or the verse has been changed. It does not follow scripture at all.
If I was given a choice whether I would want to be baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ or into the generic father, son and holy ghost formula, I would choose to have my Savior's Name spoken over my baptism. After all, I want to be 'in' Jesus Christ, specifically.
The practice of the early church at the end of the first century (just following the apostles) was to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and at other times, as in Acts, in the name of Jesus. so, the Catholic Church did not come into existence until 500 or 600 A.D. Therefore, the Catholic Church did not change the way people were baptized. The early church followed the instructions of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 and this practice has remained the norm across the centuries. For me, I just can't argue with the instructions of our Lord Jesus in Scripture.
Attacking the words of Jesus and the Bible, is just another trick of the devil to lead people into false doctrine or "doctrines of demons".
Beware of sheep in wolves clothing.
I pray that I never bring accusation against Gods holy book. I'm going to trust the words of Jesus himself. I trust that if he did not say Matthew 28:19 then he would never have allowed it to be in the bible in the first place. Either I trust him or I don't. Either he is lord of all or not lord at all.
God bless us all with childlike faith. We are not ignorant of the devils devices. If he can get us to believe that the word of God is fallible then he can destroy our trust in God. I know we are in the end times we need to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We need to test every spirit to see whether it be of the Lord.
Did Jesus really tell His disciples to do it one way and every one of them completely ignored His Command and did it differently for every baptism ever recorded after in the Bible? Or has somebody changed the verse in Matthew to read something that Jesus never spoke there?
It is a fact that there are no accounts of baptisms anywhere in scripture that use the Trinity formula of 'father, son and holy ghost.'
Everyone who is a believer has the Holy Spirit within them. He regenerates us and implants faith at the time of conversion so that we can assent to the truth of the gospel and believe in Jesus. therefore, every new believer has the Holy Spirit in them and the Spirit remains within a believer throughout their life of faith in Jesus and on into eternity.
One verse containing the words of Jesus is enough for me to believe that the apostles and disciples baptized thousands and thousands. And we do not know exactly how they did from Scripture. But we do know from accounts written by those close to the apostolic times, that they be
Nih
On top of THAT, we have this:
"Be it known unto you all, and to all people of Israel, that by the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand before you whole. ... Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Acts 4:10, 12
Pretty strong words there by St. Luke on the subject. I refuse to believe that Luke, or any of the other disciples of Christ, completely ignored a command from Jesus' mouth about how to baptize. And they all baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Do you wish to be right in the eyes of men, ... or do you want to be right in the eyes of God?
"... let God be true, but every man a liar; ..."
Romans 3:4
'father, son and holy ghost' isn't even a proper NAME. It's a general TITLE, and multiple titles at that. Matthew 28:19 does not follow logic, reason NOR scripture as a whole. We are to judge all teachers, as well as scripture itself, BY scripture. The Bible defines, confirms and justifies ITSELF.
In a court of law, the trinity doctrine for baptism would not be found legitimate at all.
In a court of law Jesus saying he was the son of God wasn't logical, apparently, and he was hung on a cross at Calvary. When did the Bible become about logic? I thought it was more about faith God does what he wants either you believe it or not.
Matthew 28:19- (Words of Jesus about baptism)
Matthew 3:13-17
Jesus set an EXAMPLE of baptism for us and all three (tri-unity) were there. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, all together, at the baptism. Jesus always led by example.
I am not seasoned in the word YET as are most of y'all, but I do know enough to know that the Bible says this;
Revelation 22:18
Revelation 22:19
With emphasis on revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I guess we will just have to differ on this because I do not wish to "x" out commands of Christ to fit a specific narrative about practices in the church we do not know about. Just because the book of Acts has a handful of examples of baptisms being done in Jesus name, we do not know the EXACT words the apostles used in these baptism, nor the practice of the other 12 apostles and hundreds of disciples from the Upper Room Pentecost, nor the leaders of the churches that were planted by the apostles. However, baptismal practices are reflected in the writings of the bishops the apostles appointed over these churches, so I will base my position on the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19, the silence of the epistle writers as to the exact words used in baptisms, and the witness of the writings of the bishops appointed by Paul and John and others. You can think what you wish. I do not wish to comnend on this matter any longer. Have a good day.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?