Spend some time around Christians and you’ll get a sense for just how diverse the communities are around the topic of Baptism. Is it necessary? Does Infant Baptism work? Does it save you? Does it regenerate you? Does it matter how it happens? Does the formula matter? Do the words spoken matter? Do they have to be in the right order? The right words? The right person speaking them?
Look at paragraph one…it’s already a mess. No wonder there is such a major schism in Christianity over this little topic of washing your body in water. And for me, coming from a strict, fundamental Oneness Pentecostal background, where baptism was not only necessary, it was critical that it was done in just the right and with just the right words or you would be forever lost to eternal torment in the lake of fire.
There are even whole denominations built around the conversation and split on this subject. The Anabaptists split from standard Protestant Christianity to reform (again) known as the ‘Radical Reformation’. Why the split? Infant Baptism. The entire schism was created due to the rise of infant baptism and the rejection by some who believed baptism was only effective if the baptized was cognizant of their sin and repentance.
And, this splintered again into what we see now as Baptists, who again are split down fundamental lines or Arminianism and Calvinism. Your reformed Baptists are Calvinist while the fundamental versions are Arminian. And now you can see why there are purported to be thousands (though the 33,000 number you hear a lot is a little misleading) of Christian denominations. They split over Baptism, over Sacraments, over Papal authority, etc.
And then, on top of all of that confusion, you have schism’s within schisms. For instance, Oneness Pentecostalism broke away from the larger Charismatic Pentecostal circles, specifically Assemblies of God back in the early 1900’s. More factually correct would be they were rejected from the Assemblies of God denomination for their new found revelation (Sabellius Take 2) of Modalism, which began with Sabellius in the third century and was rejected quickly as heresy than as well.
Oneness Pentecostalism denies the Trinity, and in so doing, rejects Baptism in the typical Matthew 28:19 formula. This was considered heresy and thus these ministers holding this view of the Godhead had to create their own splinters of Pentecostalism. And within that branch, you now have many different splinter cells again, who differentiate themselves on so-called Holiness standards and other dogmas. And now beyond that, you have New Age Pentecostalism found in the likes of Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn, and some reverters known as the New Apostolic Reformation who think they are now the chosen Apostles.
Right before I left the church I attended for 15 years, the pastor instructed those of us visiting a Louisiana church that belongs to the United Pentecostal Church, International organization to ignore the difference we saw in their dress standards and not think we can bring those back with us. You see, my church left the over-arching organization (UPCI) due to their loose standards on allowing people to wear wedding rings, to watch some videos, and in some circles, women were allowed to trim their hair.
Schisms, schisms, schisms, everywhere there are schisms. So what does that have to do with Baptism?
Well, in a word, everything, and nothing. You see, as I lean closer and closer to reformed theology and at the same time completely and radically deconstruct my faith like a jigsaw puzzle and attempt to put it back together, the blinders of Denomination Lock (blinded by the teachings of your denomination of choice and unable to see/read outside of the box, either by choice or decree of leadership) have come off and I can see the Word for what it says.
In fact, many of my more fundamental leaning readers might fear for my soul when I say one of the best books I have read in 2018 was Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy by John Shelly Sponge. I had already awoken to the realization of the transition of the Gospel from Jew to Gentile in the Book of Acts and started asking the question, (while I identified as a Oneness Pentecostal) are we misapplying much of the Book of Acts to the Gentile Church as if we were Jewish successors and still maintaining much of the Old Testament Law? Was our legalism equal to the Pharisees and Sadducees that John the Baptist called, ‘You brood of vipers!’?
Biblical Literalism is simply this: that we read the Scripture through the naive and uneducated lens of our Gentile heritage (especially in Western Culture) and fail to realize the allegorical method in which ancient Jewish people related their beliefs. And while the book does step into the realm of challenging whether or not certain Biblical characters and stories were literal people and events, the real key takeaway is learning the history of the writers and audience before interpreting the Word for yourself today.
Just think of some of the dichotomy of Scripture, where Paul at once says, “Is grace a freedom to sin? God forbid!” and then doubles back and says “All things are lawful, but they aren’t all profitable.” Well…can we do anything we want or not? If we read these verses autonomously without context and cultural understanding we are lost to private interpretation and moments of head scratching.
The same can be said for the doctrines of Baptism and I’m writing this article as I do an in-depth study of every mention of Baptism in Scripture because it is a must to understand the context of the bigger picture. For instance, one schism on Baptism is whether or not you need to be baptized to be saved and whether or not post-Pentecost, Baptism was by the majority in water, or by Spirit.
Historically, we know that water baptism has been a tenant of Christianity from its earliest writings. In fact, one of the largest lies I was every told by Oneness Pentecostal leadership and Bible College curriculum was that pre 325ad, no one EVER performed baptisms using the Matthew 28:19 formula. Historically, this simply isn’t true and is a statement of either naivety or willful dishonesty.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [help the people to learn of Me, believe in Me, and obey My words], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” – Matthew 28:19, AMP
Yet – what I find to be so much more important than the Baptismal formula, was the command of Christ to go and make disciples of all the nations! He didn’t say, go and schism on how you baptize – he said, to tell people about me, to believe in my gospel, to obey my words! (‘If you love me, keep my commandments’, John 14:15) But instead of making disciples, they splinter and fight and divide themselves amongst denominal baptismal lines.
I also find it fundamentally important to the message of Scripture to note that nowhere does it say, ‘He that is baptized wrong will go to hell.’ It just isn’t in there. We can see a heavy emphasis on certain sins by humanity that would keep them from inheriting the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), but strangely, baptism is absent.
So … why do some fundamentalists divide and schism on Baptism, to the degree of condemning one another to hell over this topic?
Let’s tackle the lie first.
No one pre-325AD (Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed) Baptised using the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Well, my friends, history is not on your side if you wish to tell this fib. There are many available references to historical writings and through them, the first being the Didache, we learn that not only was using the Titles the method of baptism used by the early Church, (by majority) but that immersion, while preferable was not necessary in cases of physical restrictions or the lack of running water (rivers, streams). Sprinkling was even used in the early church. (Heresy I know!)
The Didache says this:
Chap. VII.
1. Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things,
baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living
water.
2. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not
in cold, then in warm (water).
3. But if thou hast neither, pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
The writings of Tertullian in 211ad (Against Praxeus) suggests that the Matthew 28:19 model was in use, repeating the thrice immersion method;
“After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mentions of Their names”
Hippolytus wrote in his paper The Apostolic Tradition in 215AD;
“When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: `Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: `I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: `Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: `I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: `Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: `I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time” (The Apostolic Tradition 21).
There is more, writings by Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius and others, all pre-325 AD that signify Baptism was certainly done by water, and while methodology could vary, the one thing that remained the same was the inclusion of the titles, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Examples of Scripture
The argument made by “Jesus Only” followers such as Oneness Pentecostals is that to baptize into the model of Matthew 28:19 affirms the Trinity, and thus, must carefully be avoided and explained away. The standard argument sounds like this:
“Grammatically, saying, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ means there must be a name that was known by the speaker and audience and inferred in the statement. I wouldn’t say, sign the check in the name of the Father (me, I’m your father) and the Son (Me, I’m my mothers son), and the Spirit (I have a spirit) and you would put Father, Son and Spirit on the check, you would use my name! This is why the Apostles all baptized in Jesus name because Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son and Jesus is the Holy Ghost.”
So when we look at baptismal events in the book of Acts, we do see Peter talking to the guilty Jews of Acts 2 saying, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins…” Thus, this is taken as the Apostolic formula that is acceptable. You MUST say, “In Jesus Name” when you baptize or it is of no effect.
There is also a debate around whether or not the ‘for the remission of your sins’ means you gain remission by being baptized, or if you should be baptized in response to having your sins remitted. Schism #2097.
Question is, why didn’t anyone in the early church do that?
Baptize solely in Jesus name that is. There certainly is value in baptizing in Jesus name, because it was the revealed name of the Son (Acts 4:12), it was God manifest in the flesh (John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16) and Christ is our savior. Yet – if we look at history, the early church followed the commandment of Christ in Matthew 28:19, which, as we discussed in the article Does how you are baptized matter? due to the meaning of ‘in the name of’, it means the same thing. They are all names and references to the One, Almighty God.
So why wasn’t the method of using Jesus name only followed? Well, truth be told, we see historically that both methods were used. Early churches used both methods and this became a reverse topic of debate within orthodox and Catholic churches in early history. Looking back at Catholic writings of the day, the major stance among early Christians was that neither method was incorrect, and that either method was fully functional, it didn’t matter if you said “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ”, or if you said, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
So why the schism?
There are many reasons – for some (Oneness) it may be to reject the Trinity. For others, it is to reject infant baptism. One of the most amazing quotes I have read in regards to religion lately is this;
“People are killing each other arguing over what happens to you after you die and they don’t see the irony in that.” (Paraphrased and cleansed)
In my opinion, people just want to be ‘right’. That desire overwhelms common sense. In fact, studying older Catholic materials shows that the Catholic Church condoned both methods and declared that whether one was baptized in “Jesus Name’, or “In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” they were both efficacious.
These Schisms then, to me, are the work of the enemy of our souls. This, like Speaking in Tongues, the Oneness Vs. Trinity debate, or nothing but dividers of the brethren that serves to distract and detract from the real purpose of the Gospel, which was most simply to follow the example of Christ, which was to Love One Another, unendingly.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
DivideTheWord.blog 
You mentioned catholism in this article, what are your views on the catholic religion?
LikeLike
Hello Anthony,
I have never attended or been Catholic, so I can only say what I know from the outside. I’ve known many, many Catholics and for wrong or right, I have never felt ‘judgmentalism’ from them. I have never had a Catholic try to proselytize me or tell me I’m going to hell if I don’t accept their view points. In that regard, I have alot of respect for the philanthropic work they do and the general ease with which you can associate with them.
I do believe however, for the most part, I that Roman Catholicism strays deep in to the forests of ‘extra-biblical’ mysticism just like the more modern factions like JW, Mormonism, New Apostolic Reformation, etc. In fact, some time back I wrote an article called “The Similarities between Midieval Catholicism and Oneness Pentecostalism”. Mysticism would be in the realm of the occult, such as seeing spirits, communicating with spirits, visions of Mary, exorcisms, and then other extra-biblical stands such as celibacy and more.
The cause for the reformation was that the Roman Catholic Church taught and believed in ‘New Revelation’ that superseded historic and written Scripture. That the Pope’s words were NEW utterances of Scripture, God-Breathed, inspired by God that is equal to the Written Word and perhaps even more authoritative as it can supersede Scripture. In that, I cannot agree with them, but I can’t say they are ‘cult like’ as Oneness Pentecostalism, JW, Mormonism and other fundamental ‘We are the only saved’ type sects.
Hope that answers your question?
Blessings,
LikeLike
Thanks for the reminder. I hope we continue to enjoy unity in diversity.
LikeLike
I see where you are coming from, and have studied and agree that the trinitarian formula existed before 325AD. In fact pretty much every decision at that council existed before it was held. With that said, as you yourself acknowledge, there is plenty of evidence of the Jesus Name baptism method being used in the early church, perhaps even more than the trinitarian formula (I would need to study more to say for sure).
I believe the Apostle Paul himself made reference to people teaching false doctrine already in his time. So it would not surprise me to see that 100+ years after Jesus’ death and resurrection there was already apostasy and false doctrine taking hold. In light of all this, should we not simply be looking to Scripture for the answer on this? The fact that no one is shown baptizing in the titles in Acts, but every time it is mentioned in the name of Jesus, seems highly relevant.
I recently watched a great 10 minute video on YT where Dan Segraves dismantles the common “signing a check” example that you gave. He points to many of the things you have said here and in past articles, namely that “name” in Scripture means so much more than just a label, but rather “authority.” So “in the name of Jesus” means “in the authority of Jesus.” With all of that said, it seems to me that perhaps the Apostles’ understanding of Matt 28:19 was that there was a singular Name, or authority, being invoked. I’m curious what you personally believe they practiced in the NT church immediately after the Resurrection.
P.S. I’m enjoying your site and videos. I currently attend a UPCI church, where I am happy despite some disagreements here and there on doctrine. I saw some very overt spiritually abusive behavior at another small UPCI church that I attended for about 6 years, and was even in ministry. In fact you and I have similar backgrounds, in that I attended a UPCI bible college for 2 years. I believe truth is paramount, and remain open minded even to opinions that are completely against what I believe, and your site has been refreshing to see another side of things. But I do want you and others reading to know that not all Oneness Apostolic churches are spiritually abusive or cults. I’ve visited several and they are all very different. Ironically, we down here in California consider Oregon UPCI churches to be extremely strict so I’m not surprised to hear about the issues you had there sadly… sorry you went through that. There are definitely a lot of bad ones out there, but as a whole I see the organization leaving behind a lot of the cultish practices and becoming more liberal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comments and wonderful attitude.
I actually do see that the most common ‘example’ we have in Scripture is that the Apostles baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or simply, In the Name of the Lord.
In face, “In the name of the Lord” seems more common in Scripture but we recognize absolutely that this is speaking of the revealed man Christ Jesus.
My two main arguments is not that we shouldn’t be baptizing in Jesus Name, rather, it is a) are we causing division among the brethren by making a salvific wall of doctrine on this point, and b) are we also, like many others, interpreting things as we want to and making that ‘The Gospel’?
One person says often to me, “The example we have…” to defend certain things, like Jesus Name baptism, and, this is a valid point. When we read in the book of Acts of Baptism, nearly (but not all) occasions reference Jesus Name or In the Name of the Lord. An example in Scripture where the pattern does NOT follow is Acts 16:33-34. There was no reference to Jesus Name Baptism (though we can certainly infer it) nor speaking in unknown languages, etc.
And, we know by consistent example in Paul’s writings that he most certainly combated false doctrines, and specific doctrines that were creeping in to the Church. In fact, Acts 15 is one such event where Jewish believers were telling people ‘In order to be saved you have to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses.’ Paul made great efforts to defeat this false teaching, and others.
So then I have to ask, IF the forumal of Baptism was so great a doctrine that if done wrong, one would be lose, and IF that formula change was creeping in to the early church, why do we not see Paul coming against it? Why does Paul not teach, “Don’t you know that those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God are those who are baptized incorrectly?”
Some real thoughts I challenge myself and others to think about. Example is one thing, but God worked on specifics.
LikeLike
Interesting info you got here. I am currently a Oneness Pentecostal (but I tend to have some Reformed leanings), so I can sympathize with why you made such a post. You have some great critical insights. I am not as suspicious of the Didache having an interpolation or the latter portion of the NT text on Matthew 28:19 being an interpolation as some Oneness believers have. In fact, from the looks of Church History, it seems that there was a mixture of Christians baptizing in Christ’s name alone formula in the Father, Son, Spirit formula. If you are interested, I could send you some historical info on that as well.
To be honest, I yearn for the day when Oneness believers would no longer be considered cultic for such tendencies like fundamentalism, soteriological exclusivism, and legalism. It is, all-in-fact, very embarrassing when local and often vocal Oneness leadership hold onto a grotesque form of fundamentalism.–An epistemological arrogance that Oneness Pentecostals have the “keys to the kingdom” so-to-speak. When in fact, as a denomination, or as a movement, we are in fact very novel and minute compared to the previous great heritage of Church History. Church History could indeed humble those in my circles, especially the larger Pentecostal and Charismatic movement.
I think we will always find two different types of Christians that kind of explains the schismatic history of Christianity: authoritarians and libertarians. With authoritarians, (multiple examples of church leaders and movements in Christianity) you have Christians who desire to “lord over others” in every area of Christian life, even in meticulous areas like infant baptism or believer’s baptism. With libertarians, you have Christians who desire that everyone express their freedom in Christ so long as they don’t abuse that freedom. This could be closer to what Paul continually admonished in his Epistles. That as a church, we can be united in spite of our differences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great response A.J. I appreciate your openness. Just a week ago I implored David K. Bernard not to call the Oneness or United Pentecostal Churrch denomination, “The Truth” because inevitably, they only reference, “the Truth” to their doctrinal stands. I said, “Jesus alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life.” Its Jesus + Nothing.
And, as expected, I was brushed off and Mr. Bernard said, (it’s on his public FB page) “We do not call our denomination ‘the truth’.”
Hmm. You rightly said, that the Oneness Pentecostals, like every cultic organization, believe they have the “truth”, which means ‘the only valid path to God’., or as you also said, the keys to the Kingdom. They share incredible similarities with the Medieval Roman Catholic church and modern day Arianistic cults such as JW and Mormonism.
That aside I agree, if Oneness people would drop that arrogance and focus only on Living for God as in pursuing and sharing the Gospel without the mindset that their dogmas and Dress standards WERE the ‘Truth’, they would no longer be cultic.
But, I propose, that would be their demise. If you stripped away the Oneness (anti-Trinitarian) and Dress Standards (self-proclaimed Holiness), what’s left?
Blessings, and thank you very much for commenting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for making this forum available. I was born and raised as a Catholic. After a 6 year stint in the US Navy I spent 15 years in a UPCI church. It has now been about 18 years since I left there. My question on this subject is why is it, that when Christians pray for their food, pray for healing, pray to cast out demons, or pray for anything else, that it will be in Jesus name, but when it comes to baptizing then a lot of people will want to say the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? The scripture comes to mind of Col 3:17, And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. So the only thing that will not have the name of Jesus evoked is the thing that was listed as something that has to do with salvation?
I in no means am wanting to be argumentative and I hope it is not taken that way. I find myself in the last year or so wanting to get back or closer to God. I keep thinking of going back to a upc church to “check it out” but the thought terrifies me. .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello, and thank you for stopping by, for commenting, and most especially, your service to our freedoms.
I think my answer to the general question surrounding the ‘baptismal formula’ is that I truly dont think it matters, and, neither did the Roman Catholic church in early centuries when the debate peaked. There is much record, even in the Catholic Encyclopedia of the debate and the outcomes, of early Bishops and councils concluding that both methods were equally valid.
The topic exists because of Scriptural record, namely, Matthew 28:19, the expresses what is know as the Triune formula. And, history expresses to us that the earliest known church, much earlier than the rise of the Roman Catholic church, used the Triune practice in the ritual of baptism. Records such as the Didache (70-100ad) and many early church fathers write about Baptism in the Triune formula, and even express in such ways as baptizing the believer by laying them in the water thrice, and even sprinkling water on the baptisee thrice, once for the Father, once for the Son and once for the Spirit.
I truly agree that we do everything in the name of Jesus, and if Baptism is done on Jesus Jesus name, or the Father, Son and Spirit, it is equally beautiful and an action of faith.
I however do not believe water Baptism necessary to salvation, but rather as an expression of faith, a visible initiation in to the visible church. John the Baptist said, “I I baptise you in the water unto repentance, but he [Jesus] will baptise you with the spirit.”
Blessings and my prayers for your continued walk with God and renewed desire to seek Him!
LikeLike
Oops, I wasn’t ready to post that, a butt-post, but there it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting – I did a little study –
Some bobcat scholars confirmed oldest Christians intact taught one – and prior to council of nicene was no term trinity ironically it said the term trinity was common among other pagan Gods of its time –
Naturally This study took place because i met the apostolic church – I was already previously baptized and saved – I read the Bible for myself felt salvation could be lost – ended up here ( long story )
However here’s some info the apostolic didn’t know
It’s actually true “ my sheep hear my voice and follow me” it’s true any Christian outside knows this-
Nevertheless they said it could be explained in Acts Paul who was Saul also heard him better he saw him keep reading he had to be baptized to have Holy Ghost –
So yes I was re baptized – yes I spoke in tongues ( note even Catholic Church and Orthodox Church supports this –
Pentecostal are not only ones –
I got told off teaching the salvation prayer –
I said I share gospel – no harm in the prayer I fully believe one needs this should do this cry out to the lord ask him into our hearts truly believe he died for our sins rose again defeating death – invite him in
Anyways I also pointed out certain contractions that were not biblical –
When I showed with my Bible they were not biblical
It said a lot of what we teach is Not in the Bible –
Me – red flag I said it too
Hard given trash other churches for the trinity not being in the Bible
Anyways I stood up these say I lasted 3m
Fear is what keeps people in this church control method –
Difference was I knew Christ before hand. –
It led me back to saved doctrine – honestly
Because yes we hear him they used ( they apostolic)
Used what is bound on earth heaven pastor deal double red flag – also fake prosperity gospel I was quit to point these things out – in British very honest – if it’s not biblical – yes I had prior teachings –
I can testify having been baptized both ways I was already baptized –
That we actually baptized in his blood – moment we except him as lord and savior –
That the baptism itself – symbolic –
Tho I will state another contradiction my daughter baptized in Matthew 28:19
Came to front not knowing anything prayed her all she knew salvation prayer tho did this her all bless her she shred a tear church members step in she did speak in tongues so how can be so she wasn’t baptized ?
Then went on to say it is possible –
Makes no sense tons of contradictions
I read same pages of Catholic book you speak of many names baptism in end excepted tho today Catholic Church rejects it ironically-
Tho during those times when baptism were also notice proof of salvation wasn’t tongues even those back then that baptized in Jesus name –
LikeLike
Matthew 28:19
LikeLike
To Those Who Desire Truth!!! If Jesus Commanded The 11 Apostles In Matthew 28:19-20 (Circa 32 A.D.) Saying “It Is Now Time To Make Disciples Of And Baptize Gentiles” Why Didn’t They Obey His So Called Great Commission Where Denominations Anchor Their Faith In God! After All, Matthew Was Not Even Written Until 40 Years After Acts Chapter 2! Could It Be That Jesus Never Gave This Command And This So Called Command Was Added At A Much Later Time To Matthew’s Gospel!! The First Command The Bible Records About Gentile Conversion Is Acts 10 When A Great Sheet Is Lowered To Peter In Joppa And A Command To Rise, Kill, And Eat! Where Is The Sheet In Matthew 28:19-20 And A Voice From Heaven! Strange Isn’t It! Even When Peter Arrives At Cornelius’s Household (Circa 42 A.D.), Peter Asked Cornelius “Why Did You send For Me”! This Is Unlawful And I’m Not Suppose To Be Here!”See Acts 11:2-3! Apparently The Other Apostles Never Remembered A Matthew 28:19 Command Either!! Did They Have Amnesia Also !!!!Peter Don’t You Remember 10 Years Earlier Jesus’ Commandment To Baptize Gentiles! Peter,Did You Forget For 10 Years As One Theological Professor Explained That Fact Away To Me!! Be Blessed! Charles Kelly Memphis, Tennessee
LikeLike
Some History to give us all the correct perspective. According to History:
BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by Catholic Church in the second century. 11th Edition, Vol 3, page 365-366.
BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3, page 82.
CANNEY ENCYCLO. OF REL. – The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century. Page 53.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Vol. 2, Page 263.
HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Christian Baptism was administered using the words, “IN THE NAME OF JESUS.” Vol. 2, Page 377.
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. Vol. 2, Page 378.
Baptism was always in name of the Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. Vol. 2, Page 389.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. Vol. 8
HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Name was an ancient synonym for “person.” Payment was always made in name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property. “Ye are Christs.” Vol. 2, Page 377 on Acts 2:38.
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord’s Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. “The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord.” Also we find. “Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development.”
A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. “With the early disciples generally baptism was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).”
On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles’ Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles’ Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the “Great Commission of Jesus Christ.” Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?
“While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles Creed.”
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.
LikeLike