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.
A baptism not using the Trinitarian formula isn't valid. If a person is only baptized "in Jesus name" they don't really know which Jesus they are being baptized for.
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.You know, when you think about this statement, it's quite remarkable actually.
Everyone in the NT who was water immersed in the name of Jesus, according to you, did things incorrect, that their water immersion was somehow invalid.
I find that funny, laughable even.
I did not say that they did it wrong. They were in fact doing it right until a controversy came up.
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.Well I'm sorry, you can't try to say that anyone following our apostles examples are hereby declared wrong now,... but they were originally doing it correct.
Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?
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.
That decision having been made long ago rules out a lot of baptisms today. Oneness Pentecostal, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon, Christadelphians to name a few. It clarifies just who the Apostles meant when they baptized in Jesus' name.
A thought I have, when they baptized to "Jesus" in the NT maybe what is meant is the baptism in the Trinity. Can we surely know?
Then it must be a first century corruption since the Trinitarian formula is found in the Didache.The body of Christ was given the name of Jesus as an authority, not a triune name, hence why I posted that statement from Paul,....
Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
It seems more likely that the ending of Matthew was a very early corruption, in light of how it does not agree with the body of scripture.
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.A thought I have, when they baptized to "Jesus" in the NT maybe what is meant is the baptism in the Trinity. Can we surely know?
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.
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?Well,..... we should find some other section of scripture that would agree with the ending of Matthew,... shouldn't we?
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.You don't understand how scripture is to agree with scripture?
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 fromKeep it basic, scripture needs to agree with scripture.
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:Not a single section of scripture here affirms the ending of Matthew as a commandment of Jesus.
It's the other way around, the ending of Matthew is not in agreement with those sections of scripture I posted.Now, you seem set on interpreting these verses you've cited as contradictions of Matthew 28:19,
but as @zoidar and I have pointed out, there's a reasonable interpretation of these verses consistent with Matthew 28:19 where they're shorthand for trinitarian baptism.
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.What about if we try Eusebius's text he had instead,.....
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name,
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
Let's see if the sections of scripture I posted before agree with Matthew now,....
Acts 2:38 - 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 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”
Acts 8:16 - For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:48 - And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19:5 - When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Oh look, there is no more contradiction between Matthew and the rest of our bible!!!
Currently the ending of Matthew in our bibles is a corruption, a forgery.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?