Studies

Fellowship

E-Mail

And now we have a present day example of attempting to reconstruct the history of the (church) in retrospect:

"The Apostles didn't baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, but in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We know this, because it has been the practice of the Church always and everywhere to do so,... My main point was that the tradition of the Apostles and the Church has always been to baptize in the form I stated, and never in yours... But the Papal institution in Rome IS Apostolic, and as you say, they have always taught baptism in the names of the trinity." -Estragon

I do want you to note that I do note your words: "My bottom line is 'by Estragon', that was a quote from a more complete text..." Therefore, I am not saying it is you, Estragon, who is the liar, but those whom you have quoted.

What I am trying to tell you, Estragon, is that: "I fully understand that you think (you've been taught the truth in the Catholic religion), but here are the facts"...

"And so they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and baptism was not repeated among these... for there is one baptism... For when it is said 'In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,' the mystery is completed by the unity of the name." -St. Ambrose, The Fathers of the Church; vol. 3, pp. 49,50.

Stephen 1 254-257 Bishop of Rome, from a letter of Firmilianus to Cyprian: "But he (Stephen) says, 'the name of Christ conduces greatly to faith and to the sanctification of baptism, so that whoever has been baptized anywhere in the name of Christ, at once obtains the grace of Christ.'"

"The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used form the beginning, nor did they always go together. The teaching of the Apostles, indeed, prescribes baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord- the normal formula of the New Testament. In the third century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid... Pope Nicholas (858-867), in the Responsa ad consulta Bulgarorum, allowed baptism to be valid tantum in nomine Christi, as in Acts... the Synod of Nemours (A.D. 1284), also asserted that baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid." -Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol.3, pp365-366.

"...Even as early as St. Cyprian's (Epist. 1Xiii) time, That there were some who maintained that it was sufficient to administer 'in the name of Jesus Christ.' St. Ambrose favors this opinion, if the treatise De Spiritu Sancto (lib. I, cap.111) be really his. In later times this same opinion was formally maintained by more than one authority. The council of Frejus, a. 792, and Pope Nicholas I, in his Responsa ad Bulgaros, all maintain more or less emphatically the validity of such a formula." -Smith, William. A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. 1, page 162

Didache 9 says- "But let no one eat, or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord..."

"There is little doubt that baptism was practiced by the first Christians as a kind of initiatory rite, when they received new believers into their community. Also, we can be quite certain that this baptism was given 'into the name of Jesus.'" Lars Hartman, "Baptism 'Into the Name of Jesus' and Early Christology" Studia Theologica; vol. 28, no. 1, p. 21.

(Credit for some of the above quotes goes to Thomas Weisser in- "Jesus Name Baptism Through the Centuries")

"The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus. . .which still occurs even in the second and third centuries." Schaff-Herzog Ency. of Religious Knowledge Volume 1, page 435‹1966 edition:

under Method of Baptism: "The formula used was 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name." Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; Edited by James Hastings; Volume 2, page 384‹1958 edition

under The Baptismal Formula, page 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together." The Encyclopedia Britannica; Volume 3, pages 365 and 368‹1910 edition:

under Origin of Christian Baptism, page 368: "We gather from Acts 19:4, that John had merely baptized in the name of the coming Messiah, without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth. the Apostolic age supplied this identification, and the normal use during it seems to have been 'into Christ Jesus,' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' simply, or 'of the Lord Jesus Christ.'" The Encyclopedia Britannica; Volume 3, pages 365 and 368‹1910 edition:

"Moreover, there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity." A Dictionary of the Bible by James Hastings Volume 1, page 241‹1906 edition:

"With the early disciples generally baptism was 'in the name of Jesus Christ." A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker page 87‹1959 edition:

under Formula: "In the name of Jesus Christ or of the Lord Jesus. The former expression is used in Acts 2:38 and 10:48. The latter is used in Acts 8:16 and 19:5. See also Acts 22:16. . .From these passages, and from Paul's words in Corinthians 1 :13 ('Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?'), it is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single‹not triple, as was the later reed." Encyclopedia Biblica; Volume 1, page 473‹1899 edition:

The above group of quotes (from the ==='s down) were complied from a tract called "Water Baptism according to History and Scripture" by David C. Nevins

Please continue with 5) Jesus warned us not to listen to liars who called themselves apostles.