Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I did not say that they did it wrong. They were in fact doing it right until a controversy came up. That controversy was caused by the gnostics of the time claiming Jesus for themselves, but also claiming that he was a "spirit being" with no physical body. The new testament is filled with polemics against them, see John 20:25-28 and as I posted above, 1John 4:3 as examples. And they baptized people as an initiation, and baptized them "in Jesus' name". That was the controversy and the Church resolved it. For the Church to say "We will do it this way from now on" does not invalidate anything that happened before, but merely clarifies it.
No, I just don't think you understand. When a decision is made by the Church it does not invalidate anything that came before. It simply clarifies what came before. Just as the decision to baptize using the Trinitarian formula did not invalidate proper baptisms prior to that decision, but merely clarified what precisely was a proper baptism. It ruled out gnostic baptisms because they were not baptizing in the name of Jesus the Word of God, but were baptizing in their own heretical use of the name of Jesus.
Then it must be a first century corruption since the Trinitarian formula is found in the Didache.
This is my understanding as well. We know that Christian baptism was referred to as "the baptism of Jesus" to distinguish it from the baptism of John the Baptist, so it makes sense that it would be referred to in this way in Scripture to denote that people were given a trinitarian, Christian baptism as opposed to the type of baptism given by John the Baptist. It seems unlikely to me that our Lord would have given the Apostles particular instructions about how to baptize people but that they would then not follow His instructions to the letter, and it is absolutely impossible that there was a Da Vinci Code kind of conspiracy to edit all of the manuscripts of Matthew's gospel within a couple of decades of its authorship. Besides, the vast majority of people in that time, probably including the author of the Didache, learned from oral transmission of the faith, not by reading manuscripts.
What's this? Are you applying some kind of second-order version of sola scriptura where even things we find in Scripture have to be justified by finding them in other Scripture? How many levels of this do you propose we add?
Of course it does, but that's not what you're saying. You're saying that the authenticity of the ending of Matthew's gospel should be verified by some other positive teaching elsewhere in Scripture. That does happen with some doctrines, like the reservation of ordination to Holy Orders for men instead of women, but not for most of them.
It is basic, the above statement is logically different from
Scripture agreeing with Scripture just means there can't be a contradiction, it doesn't posit a second positive teaching for any given teaching. In formal logic:
In my opinion you should remove Ac 8:12 (When Philip preached about Jesus they were baptized. It says nothing about how they were baptized.) and Ac 22:16 (it just says we are to call on the Lord while being baptized, nothing about the formula itself) from your list since they don't specifically mention the baptism being to Jesus.
