Baptism in Jesus’ Name?
Comments
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.I would not consider the early church fathers to have been contemporaries of the original apostels and early disciples ... in addition, from their writings it seems that what the apostle John in his epistles already indicated about deviation from right doctrine happening, was progressing rapidly in the times after the fall of Jerusalem and in the "next generation" of the early church.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.I would not consider the early church fathers to have been contemporaries of the original apostels and early disciples ... in addition, from their writings it seems that what the apostle John in his epistles already indicated about deviation from right doctrine happening, was progressing rapidly in the times after the fall of Jerusalem and in the "next generation" of the early church.
Do you know when Ignatius lived? How can you possibly say he was not a contemporary? That's absurd. Ignatius is also not the only ECF that had that reading. Remember, your assertion was that it did not appear until almost 350 AD and that has clearly been proven to be false.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Do you know when Ignatius lived? How can you possibly say he was not a contemporary?as far as I know, he was not active as a contemporary to the 12 apostles, but became more prominent in th.e decades following after they had passed away.
That's absurd. Ignatius is also not the only ECF that had that reading. Remember, your assertion was that it did not appear until almost 350 AD and that has clearly been proven to be false.
Careful, I did not make any such assertion .... I mentioned Eusebius and his writings, and that in his writings the trinitarian formula only appears after the council of Nicea in 325 AD, while in writings before that time, Eusebius makes reference to Mt 28:19 without the words "and baptize them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost"
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Do you know when Ignatius lived? How can you possibly say he was not a contemporary?as far as I know, he was not active as a contemporary to the 12 apostles, but became more prominent in th.e decades following after they had passed away.
I'll look into it a little more, but from what I have seen he was definitely contemporary if not to the 12 themselves, their first removed disciples.
That's absurd. Ignatius is also not the only ECF that had that reading. Remember, your assertion was that it did not appear until almost 350 AD and that has clearly been proven to be false.
Careful, I did not make any such assertion .... I mentioned Eusebius and his writings, and that in his writings the trinitarian formula only appears after the council of Nicea in 325 AD, while in writings before that time, Eusebius makes reference to Mt 28:19 without the words "and baptize them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost"
Then your argument was pretty weak. But I would say you used it to make people think, and it clearly worked on Dave, that it was an invention of the church centuries later.
-
@Wolfgang @Dave_L it should also be noted the phrasing: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is also found in the Didache as well.
- But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 232.
-
@Dave_L said:
I received baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ as a trinitarian. And I believe this method identifies Jesus as God, as stated in the classic trinitarian model.This is a very on that may share some light on your interest. CM
THE GREEK INFLUENCE OF IDEAS AND UPON THE USAGES UPON CHRISTIAN CHURCH
BY THE LATE EDWIN HATCH, D.D.
READER IN ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.
EDITED BY A. M. FAIRBAIRN, D.D. PRINCIPAL OP MANSFIELD COLLEGE, OXFORD.
SIXTH EDITION.
WILLIAMS AND NORGATE,
14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH AND 7, BROAD STREET, OXFORD. 1897.Lecture XI.
THE INCORPORATION OF CHRISTIAN IDEAS, AS MODIFIED BY GEEEK, INTO
A BODY OF DOCTRINE.The object which I have in view in this Lecture is to show the transition by which, under the influence of contemporary Greek thought, the word Faith came to- be transferred from simple trust in God to mean the- acceptance of a series of propositions, and these propositions, propositions in abstract metaphysics.
The Greek words which designate belief or faith are used in the Old Testament chiefly in the sense of trust, and primarily trust in a person. They expressed confidence in his goodness, his veracity, his uprightness. They are as much moral as intellectual. They implied an estimate of character. Their use in application to God was not different from their use in application to men. Abraham trusted God. The Israelites also trusted God when they saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore. In the first instance there was just so much of intellectual assent involved in belief, that to believe God. involved an assent to the proposition that God exists.
But this element was latent and implied rather than conscious and expressed. It is not difficult to see how, when this proposition came to be conscious and expressed, it should lead to other propositions. The analysis of belief led to the construction of other propositions besides the bare original proposition that God is. "Why do I trust God? The answer was: Because He is wise, or good, or just. The propositions followed: I believe that God is wise, that He is good, that He is just. Belief in God came to mean the assent to certain propositions about God. 1 [1 Cf. Celsus' idea of faith: Orig. c. Cels. 3. 39; Keim, p. 39.]
In Greek philosophy, the words were used rather of intellectual conviction than of moral trust, and of the higher rather than of the lower forms of conviction. Aristotle distinguishes faith from impression he says, may have an impression and not be sure of it. He uses it both of the convictions that come through the senses and of those that come through reason.
There is in Philo a special application of this philosophical use, which led to even more important results. He blends the sense in which it is found in the Old Testament with that which is found in Greek philosophy. The mass of men, he says, trust their senses or their reason. The good man trusts God. Just as the mass of men believe that their senses and their reason do not deceive them, so the latter believes that God does not deceive him. To trust God was to trust His veracity. But the occasions on which God spoke directly to a man were rare, and what He said when He so spoke commanded an unquestioning acceptance. He more commonly spoke to men through the agency of messengers. His angels spoke to men, sometimes in visions of the night, sometimes in open manifestation by day. His prophets spoke to men. To believe God, implied a belief in what He said indirectly as well as directly. It implied the acceptance of what His prophets said, that is to say, of what they were recorded to have said in the Holy "Writings. Belief in this sense is not a vague and mystical sentiment, the hazy state of mind which precedes knowledge, but the highest form of conviction. It transcends reason in certainty. It is the full assurance that certain things are so, because God has said that they are so.
[**1 Philo's view of faith is well expressed in two striking passages, Quis rer. div. Hcres, 18, i. 485; and de Ahrah. 46, ii. 39.**]
In this connection we may note the way in which the Christian communities were —helped by the current reaction against pure speculation...
...the narrowest limits, what those assertions were. There are several phrases in the New Testament and in sub-apostolic writings which read like references to some elementary statements or rule. 1 But none of them contain or express are cognized standard. Yet the standard may be gathered partly from the formula of admission into the Christian community, partly from the formulae in which praise was ascribed to God. The most important of these, in view of its subsequent history, is the former. But the formula is itself uncertain; it existed at least in two main forms. There is evidence to show that the injunction to baptize in the name of the three Persons of the Trinity, which is found in the last chapter of St. Matthew, was observed. 2 It is the formula in the Teaching of the Apostles.3
E.g. Rom. vi. 17, els ov TrapeSo^r^re tittov 8tSa;;^^s ; 2 John, 9, iv TTj SiBa'^ij Tou XpicTTOu ; 2 Tim. 1. 13, vTrorvirwariv iy^e tiytaivovTWv Adywv (OV Trap e'/xou T^Kovcras ; 1 Tim. vi. 12, tu/toAoyi^cras rijv KaXrjv ojxokoyLav; Jude 3, i) ajra^ TrapaSoOeicra tois dyiots Trtcms. Polycrates, ap. Eus. H. E. 5. 24, 6 Kavwv t?}s Trto-rews : see passages collected in Gebhardt and Harnack's Patres Apost. Bd. i. th. 2 (Barnabas), p. 133.
Cf. Schmid, Dogmeng. p. 14, Das Taufsymbol.
c. 7. 4.
But there is also evidence, side by side with this evidence as to the use of the Trinitarian formula, of baptism into the name of Christ, or into the death of Christ. 1
The next element in the uncertainty which exists is as to how far the formula, either in the one case or the other, was conceived to involve the assent to any other propositions except those of the existence of the divine Persons or Person mentioned in the formula. Even this assent was implied rather than explicit. It is in the Apologists that the transition from the implicit was made. The teaching of Jesus Christ became to them important, especially in Justin Martyr. 2 The step by which it became explicit is of great importance, but we have no means of knowing when or how it was made. 3 It is conceivable that it was first made homiletically, in the course of exhortation to Christian duty. 4 When the intellectual contents of the formula did become explicit, the formula became a test. Concurrently with its use as a standard or test of belief, was probably the incorporation in it of so much of Christian teaching as referred to the facts of the life of Jesus Christ.
See Acts viii. 16, xix. 5, with which compare Eom. vi. 1 —11, Acts xxii. 16. Didache, 9. 5, ol /JaTrTto-^evres eis ovo/ia Kvpiov ', and Apost. Const. Bk. ii. 7, p. 20, ot jSaTma-OevTes els Tov ddvarov rov l^vptov Irjcrov ovk offteiXovcriv afxapTaveiv ol roiovroC ws yap ol aTTO^avovTes dvevepy^jroi Trpos afiapTiav uTrap^ovcrtv, ovrois Kal ol avva- TTO^avovres tw XptcrTW airpaKTOi Trpo? afxapriav ; cf. 148. 7, and elsewhere, in composite form. Against this Cyprian wrote, in Ep. 73, ad Jubaianum, 16
Cf. von Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justins, p. 107.
Cf. Harnack, Dogmeng. p. 130 ff.
Cf. Clement's account of Basilides' conception of faith in contrast to his own, Strom. 5. 1.
But the facts were capable of different interpretations, and different propositions might be based upon them. In the first instance, speculation was free. Different facts had a different significance. The same facts of the life were interpreted in different ways. Therewasanagreement as to the main principle that the Christian societies were societies for the amendment of life. It is an almost ideal picture which the heathen Celsus draws of the Christians differing widely as to their speculations, and yet all agreeing to say, "The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world."1 The influence of Greek thought, partly by the allegorizing of history, partly by the construction of great superstructures of speculation upon slender bases, made the original standard too elastic to serve as the basis and bond of Christian society. When theories were added to fact, different theories were added. It is at this point that the fact became of special importance that the Gospel had been preached by certain persons, and that its content was the content of that preaching. It was not a philosophy which successive generations might modify. It went back to the definite teaching of a historical person. It was of importance to be sure what that teaching was. It was agreed to recognize apostolic teaching as the authoritative vehicle and interpretation of Christ's. All parties appealed to it.2 But there had been more than one apostle. The teaching was consequently that, not of one person, but of many.
Orig. c. Cels. 5. 65.
- Cf. Ptolemaeus ad Floram, c, 7, ed. Pet
Here was the main point of dispute. All Parties within the Church agreed as to the need of a tribunal, but each party had its own. Each made its appeal to a...
-
Here more from a more recent source: WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY VOLUME 41 Galatians
RICHARD N. LONGENECKER
——————General Editors——————
Bruce M. Metzger
David A. Hubbard
Glenn W. Barker
——————Old Testament Editor——————
John D. W. Watts
——————New Testament Editor——————
Ralph P. Martin
WORD BOOKS, PUBLISHER • DALLAS, TEXAS--- CMGal 5:19-26
21b ἃ πνμθέβς ὑιῖκ ηαεὼξ πνμεῖπμκ ὅηζ μἱ ηὰ ημζαοηα πνάζζμκηεξ ααζζθείακ εεμῦ μὐ ηθδνμκμιήζμοζζκ, ―I warn you, even as I said before: Those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.‖ The neuter plural relative pronoun ἅ (―these things‖) is undoubtedly accusative, not nominative, and so looks forward to the statement introduced by ὅηζ (―that‖), not back to the fifteen vices just enumerated. Because of the preposition πνυ, the verb πνμθέβς could be understood to mean either ―foretell‖ or ―tell forth publicly.‖ But since elsewhere where Paul uses πνμθέβς its object is a predictive warning (cf. 2 Cor 13:2; 1 Thess 3:4), it probably should be understood here as well to mean ―I am predicting‖ or ―I warn.‖ Both the neuter plural relative pronoun ἅ and the verb πνμθέβς, therefore, refer the reader forward to what will be said as introduced by ὅηζ.But while being pointed forward by the relative pronoun and verb, the phrase ηαεὼξ πνμεῖπμκ (―even as I said before‖) points back to what Paul told his converts before—either in the immediate context of his letter (so, possibly, Gal 1:9; see Comment on that verse) or when he was with them earlier (so Gal 5:3; 2 Cor 13:2; 1 Thess 4:6). Here it seems Paul has in mind some portion of his past teaching when he was with them, for there is nothing in the immediate context that matches the content of what he states he is repeating in the last part of the sentence. And while he himself gives no indication as to when in their time together he gave them this instruction, it may be assumed that what we have here is part of Paul‘s pre-baptismal ethical teaching. For as Did. 7.1 tells us, new converts to Christ were given ethical teaching just before their baptism: ―Concerning baptism, so shall you baptize: Having first repeated all these things [i.e., the ethical instruction of chapters 1–6 on the ―Two Ways‖], baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit‖ (cf. Justin, Apology 1.61).
21b ἃ πνμθέβς ὑιῖκ ηαεὼξ πνμεῖπμκ ὅηζ μἱ ηὰ ημζαοηα πνάζζμκηεξ ααζζθείακ εεμῦ μὐ ηθδνμκμιήζμοζζκ, ―I warn you, even as I said before: Those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.‖ The neuter plural relative pronoun ἅ (―these things‖) is undoubtedly accusative, not nominative, and so looks forward to the statement introduced by ὅηζ (―that‖), not back to the fifteen vices just enumerated. Because of the preposition πνυ, the verb πνμθέβς could be understood to mean either ―foretell‖ or ―tell forth publicly.‖ But since elsewhere where Paul uses πνμθέβς its object is a predictive warning (cf. 2 Cor 13:2; 1 Thess 3:4), it probably should be understood here as well to mean ―I am predicting‖ or ―I warn.‖ Both the neuter plural relative pronoun ἅ and the verb πνμθέβς, therefore, refer the reader forward to what will be said as introduced by ὅηζ.
But while being pointed forward by the relative pronoun and verb, the phrase ηαεὼξ πνμεῖπμκ (―even as I said before‖) points back to what Paul told his converts before—either in the immediate context of his letter (so, possibly, Gal 1:9; see Comment on that verse) or when he was with them earlier (so Gal 5:3; 2 Cor 13:2; 1 Thess 4:6). Here it seems Paul has in mind some portion of his past teaching when he was with them, for there is nothing in the immediate context that matches the content of what he states he is repeating in the last part of the sentence. And while he himself gives no indication as to when in their time together he gave them this instruction, it may be assumed that what we have here is part of Paul‘s prebaptismal ethical teaching. For as Did. 7.1 tells us, new converts to Christ were given ethical teaching just before their baptism: ―Concerning baptism, so shall you baptize: Having first repeated all these things [i.e., the ethical instruction of chapters 1–6 on the ―Two Ways‖], baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit‖ (cf. Justin, Apology 1.61).
I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang @Dave_L it should also be noted the phrasing: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is also found in the Didache as well.- But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 232.
There are a number of things found in writings of the early church fathers or the didache which show how false doctrine was being introduced from the outside into the doctrine of the early church.
The proponents of those later introduced deviating doctrines sometimes propose it shows how the church began to better understand and/or express the NT doctrine ... I would say, such deviations are clear false doctrines -
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang @Dave_L it should also be noted the phrasing: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is also found in the Didache as well.- But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 232.
There are a number of things found in writings of the early church fathers or the didache which show how false doctrine was being introduced from the outside into the doctrine of the early church.
The proponents of those later introduced deviating doctrines sometimes propose it shows how the church began to better understand and/or express the NT doctrine ... I would say, such deviations are clear false doctrinesComing from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
-
@C_M_ said:
Here more from a more recent source: WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY VOLUME 41 Galatians
RICHARD N. LONGENECKER
——————General Editors——————
Bruce M. Metzger
David A. Hubbard
Glenn W. Barker
——————Old Testament Editor——————
John D. W. Watts
——————New Testament Editor——————
Ralph P. Martin
WORD BOOKS, PUBLISHER • DALLAS, TEXAS--- CMGal 5:19-26
21b ἃ πνμθέβς ὑιῖκ ηαεὼξ πνμεῖπμκ ὅηζ μἱ ηὰ ημζαοηα πνάζζμκηεξ ααζζθείακ εεμῦ μὐ ηθδνμκμιήζμοζζκ, ―I warn you, even as I said before: Those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.‖ The neuter plural relative pronoun ἅ (―these things‖) is undoubtedly accusative, not nominative, and so looks forward to the statement introduced by ὅηζ (―that‖), not back to the fifteen vices just enumerated. Because of the preposition πνυ, the verb πνμθέβς could be understood to mean either ―foretell‖ or ―tell forth publicly.‖ But since elsewhere where Paul uses πνμθέβς its object is a predictive warning (cf. 2 Cor 13:2; 1 Thess 3:4), it probably should be understood here as well to mean ―I am predicting‖ or ―I warn.‖ Both the neuter plural relative pronoun ἅ and the verb πνμθέβς, therefore, refer the reader forward to what will be said as introduced by ὅηζ.But while being pointed forward by the relative pronoun and verb, the phrase ηαεὼξ πνμεῖπμκ (―even as I said before‖) points back to what Paul told his converts before—either in the immediate context of his letter (so, possibly, Gal 1:9; see Comment on that verse) or when he was with them earlier (so Gal 5:3; 2 Cor 13:2; 1 Thess 4:6). Here it seems Paul has in mind some portion of his past teaching when he was with them, for there is nothing in the immediate context that matches the content of what he states he is repeating in the last part of the sentence. And while he himself gives no indication as to when in their time together he gave them this instruction, it may be assumed that what we have here is part of Paul‘s pre-baptismal ethical teaching. For as Did. 7.1 tells us, new converts to Christ were given ethical teaching just before their baptism: ―Concerning baptism, so shall you baptize: Having first repeated all these things [i.e., the ethical instruction of chapters 1–6 on the ―Two Ways‖], baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit‖ (cf. Justin, Apology 1.61).
21b ἃ πνμθέβς ὑιῖκ ηαεὼξ πνμεῖπμκ ὅηζ μἱ ηὰ ημζαοηα πνάζζμκηεξ ααζζθείακ εεμῦ μὐ ηθδνμκμιήζμοζζκ, ―I warn you, even as I said before: Those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.‖ The neuter plural relative pronoun ἅ (―these things‖) is undoubtedly accusative, not nominative, and so looks forward to the statement introduced by ὅηζ (―that‖), not back to the fifteen vices just enumerated. Because of the preposition πνυ, the verb πνμθέβς could be understood to mean either ―foretell‖ or ―tell forth publicly.‖ But since elsewhere where Paul uses πνμθέβς its object is a predictive warning (cf. 2 Cor 13:2; 1 Thess 3:4), it probably should be understood here as well to mean ―I am predicting‖ or ―I warn.‖ Both the neuter plural relative pronoun ἅ and the verb πνμθέβς, therefore, refer the reader forward to what will be said as introduced by ὅηζ.
But while being pointed forward by the relative pronoun and verb, the phrase ηαεὼξ πνμεῖπμκ (―even as I said before‖) points back to what Paul told his converts before—either in the immediate context of his letter (so, possibly, Gal 1:9; see Comment on that verse) or when he was with them earlier (so Gal 5:3; 2 Cor 13:2; 1 Thess 4:6). Here it seems Paul has in mind some portion of his past teaching when he was with them, for there is nothing in the immediate context that matches the content of what he states he is repeating in the last part of the sentence. And while he himself gives no indication as to when in their time together he gave them this instruction, it may be assumed that what we have here is part of Paul‘s prebaptismal ethical teaching. For as Did. 7.1 tells us, new converts to Christ were given ethical teaching just before their baptism: ―Concerning baptism, so shall you baptize: Having first repeated all these things [i.e., the ethical instruction of chapters 1–6 on the ―Two Ways‖], baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit‖ (cf. Justin, Apology 1.61).
I hope this help? Do the best you can with this. CM
This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT. And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
You and the Catholics cannot use the New Testament to support your penchant for violence. Nor can you criticise them for sprinkling infants when neither of you understand and practice baptism as the Apostles did in Acts.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
You and the Catholics cannot use the New Testament to support your penchant for violence. Nor can you criticise them for sprinkling infants when neither of you understand and practice baptism as the Apostles did in Acts.
Thank you for your opinion.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
You and the Catholics cannot use the New Testament to support your penchant for violence. Nor can you criticise them for sprinkling infants when neither of you understand and practice baptism as the Apostles did in Acts.
Thank you for your opinion.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact based on Scripture.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
You and the Catholics cannot use the New Testament to support your penchant for violence. Nor can you criticise them for sprinkling infants when neither of you understand and practice baptism as the Apostles did in Acts.
Thank you for your opinion.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact based on Scripture.
No Dave, that is your opinion of what Scripture says. It is your ****Interpretation****.
I believe your interpretation is incorrect. You believe it is truth.
Here's the thing, neither of those doctrines are essentials.
In Essentials Unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
You and the Catholics cannot use the New Testament to support your penchant for violence. Nor can you criticise them for sprinkling infants when neither of you understand and practice baptism as the Apostles did in Acts.
Thank you for your opinion.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact based on Scripture.
No Dave, that is your opinion of what Scripture says. It is your ****Interpretation****.
I believe your interpretation is incorrect. You believe it is truth.
Here's the thing, neither of those doctrines are essentials.
In Essentials Unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
How can I offer an opinion by quoting Peter and all of Acts on baptism?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
You and the Catholics cannot use the New Testament to support your penchant for violence. Nor can you criticise them for sprinkling infants when neither of you understand and practice baptism as the Apostles did in Acts.
Thank you for your opinion.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact based on Scripture.
No Dave, that is your opinion of what Scripture says. It is your ****Interpretation****.
I believe your interpretation is incorrect. You believe it is truth.
Here's the thing, neither of those doctrines are essentials.
In Essentials Unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
How can I offer an opinion by quoting Peter and all of Acts on baptism?
The same way I did by quoting Christ.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
You and the Catholics cannot use the New Testament to support your penchant for violence. Nor can you criticise them for sprinkling infants when neither of you understand and practice baptism as the Apostles did in Acts.
Thank you for your opinion.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact based on Scripture.
No Dave, that is your opinion of what Scripture says. It is your ****Interpretation****.
I believe your interpretation is incorrect. You believe it is truth.
Here's the thing, neither of those doctrines are essentials.
In Essentials Unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
How can I offer an opinion by quoting Peter and all of Acts on baptism?
The same way I did by quoting Christ.
But you reject Christ who used Peter and the NT Church to demonstrate all that he meant.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
You and the Catholics cannot use the New Testament to support your penchant for violence. Nor can you criticise them for sprinkling infants when neither of you understand and practice baptism as the Apostles did in Acts.
Thank you for your opinion.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact based on Scripture.
No Dave, that is your opinion of what Scripture says. It is your ****Interpretation****.
I believe your interpretation is incorrect. You believe it is truth.
Here's the thing, neither of those doctrines are essentials.
In Essentials Unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
How can I offer an opinion by quoting Peter and all of Acts on baptism?
The same way I did by quoting Christ.
But you reject Christ who used Peter and the NT Church to demonstrate all that he meant.
No, I say the two harmonize. That is your OPINION.
In ESSENTIALS unity, in Non-Essentials liberty, in all things charity.
Dave, it is fine that you hold different views than I do on certain things but that doesn't mean you hold absolute truth and you should not project your non-essential views on me or anyone else.
If I was denying the Deity of Christ, that would be one thing. But we are talking about a doctrine that has potential conflicting views within Scripture itself. You think they conflict, I think they harmonize. That is fine if you believe you have to use the specific name of Christ. GO FOR IT DO IT. As a matter of conscience please do not stray from it. But don't make me out to be this evil person because I do not believe that is the command being made.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Coming from someone who denies the Deity of Christ that doesn't hold a lot of stock with me.I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...
Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
You can furnish millions if not billions who rejected Peter's and the entire early church's interpretation of Jesus' words.
Oh brother Dave, is that the best you have? You know we do not have every time Peter did a baptism recorded right? Or the other disciples for that matter right? You really need to come up with a better argument than that.
I gave you a quote from an Apostalic Father who was a contemporary of the disciples and left with their charge. He was hardly someone who rejected the early church's interpretation HE WAS PART OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
The book of Acts is the best commentary we have on the gospels and the letters. We can see what Jesus meant by what he said in the way the Apostles understood him. But on two counts so far, those being your views on violence and baptism, you cannot produce one piece of scriptural evidence from the NT, and especially from Acts, to bolster your position. This is s fact, not an opinion.
You side with the Catholics on both positions.
On self-defense, not violence, the topic was self-defense, you are correct I posted Scriptural evidence it just was not satisfactory to someone who ignores the OT.
That being said, I also gave evidence, this time from the NT, about how you can use either formula for Baptism. You are, in fact, giving opinions on the text, not facts. The funny thing is on the baptism you actually move the goalposts, not only does my Scriptural support have to be from the NT, it now must be from Acts specifically. You really should take a course in hermeneutics.
That being said, you say I side with Catholics on both positions. That is a really interesting attack. I assume you believe Jesus is God? Yes? Guess what, you side with Catholics on that. Does that mean the position is wrong?
You and the Catholics cannot use the New Testament to support your penchant for violence. Nor can you criticise them for sprinkling infants when neither of you understand and practice baptism as the Apostles did in Acts.
Thank you for your opinion.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact based on Scripture.
No Dave, that is your opinion of what Scripture says. It is your ****Interpretation****.
I believe your interpretation is incorrect. You believe it is truth.
Here's the thing, neither of those doctrines are essentials.
In Essentials Unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
How can I offer an opinion by quoting Peter and all of Acts on baptism?
The same way I did by quoting Christ.
But you reject Christ who used Peter and the NT Church to demonstrate all that he meant.
No, I say the two harmonize. That is your OPINION.
In ESSENTIALS unity, in Non-Essentials liberty, in all things charity.
Dave, it is fine that you hold different views than I do on certain things but that doesn't mean you hold absolute truth and you should not project your non-essential views on me or anyone else.
If I was denying the Deity of Christ, that would be one thing. But we are talking about a doctrine that has potential conflicting views within Scripture itself. You think they conflict, I think they harmonize. That is fine if you believe you have to use the specific name of Christ. GO FOR IT DO IT. As a matter of conscience please do not stray from it. But don't make me out to be this evil person because I do not believe that is the command being made.
Your method of baptism does not harmonise with the NT. Peter interpreted Jesus' words for us. You are not rejecting me or him, you are rejecting God's word.
-
@Dave_L said:
This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT. And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.
Help me understand the flow. Is it the "formula" and/or the "mode of baptism" that's at contention? If it's the latter history does show a marked deviation from the time of John. This will demand a new thread. What say ye? CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
I did not write those works almost 2000 years ago ... I am just reading what they wrote and compare it to the NT Scriptures and notice the development of how Scripture based doctrine was amended, changed, etc within several decades in 2nd-3rd centuries AD.
I suppose anyone else can read for themselves as well ...Yes and the Deity of Christ is clearly spelled out.
Exactly ... that doctrine developed with the early church fathers but is NOT AT ALL taught in the NT scriptures.
Neither Jesus nor his apostles taught a "Deity of Christ" doctrine, this idea about Jesus "having to be God" only came into the picture with certain early church fathers. For quite some time there was controversy in that these fathers were opposed by those who defended the original doctrine about Christ as the only begotten Son of God, the promised Messiah, that human being whom God had promised to send as savior. Unfortunately, the "new (church fathers') doctrine" eventually prevailed with a lot of political support ... and was later expanded from a "bi-nitarian" into a "TRI-nitarian" doctrine.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
This is nice, but the Book of Acts is the only "inspired" commentary we have on the NT. And they exclusively baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Every other mode introduced by the Catholics, and embraced by "evangelicals" today is skewed.
Help me understand the flow. Is it the "formula" and/or the "mode of baptism" that's at contention? If it's the latter history does show a marked deviation from the time of John. This will demand a new thread. What say ye? CM
There is an extreme deviation from the NT model of baptism in many denominations. And a partial deviation from the model in others, with petty few remaining who follow the NT model as demonstrated by Peter and the Book of Acts.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
How can I offer an opinion by quoting Peter and all of Acts on baptism?The same way I did by quoting Christ.
I suppose then, maybe Peter and the rest either totally missed what Christ had commanded them only a few days before Pentecost ? Or maybe Peter and the rest just thought they knew better than Christ?
Or is there a problem with how the wording of Mt 28:19 has been changed at some point in time in order to match a particular later introduced doctrine ?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
How can I offer an opinion by quoting Peter and all of Acts on baptism?The same way I did by quoting Christ.
I suppose then, maybe Peter and the rest either totally missed what Christ had commanded them only a few days before Pentecost ? Or maybe Peter and the rest just thought they knew better than Christ?
Or is there a problem with how the wording of Mt 28:19 has been changed at some point in time in order to match a particular later introduced doctrine ?
No, what I am saying the two are the same thing.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
In Essentials Unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
This is a quote. Philip Schaff (nineteenth-century church historian) calls the saying, “the watchword of Christian peacemakers” (History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, p. 650).
The quote is often attributed to great theologians such as Augustine, it comes from an otherwise undistinguished German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century, Rupertus Meldenius.
The phrase occurs in a tract on Christian unity written (circa 1627) during the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), a bloody time in European history in which religious tensions played a significant role. The saying has found great favor among subsequent writers such as Richard Baxter, and has since been adopted as a motto by the Moravian Church of North America and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.
These words, translated variously as “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity,” or, “unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things,” have often been assigned to St. Augustine and used as a sort of get-out-of-debate free card for many theological difficulties.
However, St. Augustine did not say this.
For some time, those in the know cited Peter Meiderlin (Rupertus Meldeniu), a German Lutheran theologian who said in 1626: “if we might keep in necessary things Unity, in unnecessary things Freedom, and in both Charity, our affairs would certainly be in the best condition.” Now this is clearly a post-Reformation saying, said by a Protestant. So it is not only not a saying of St. Augustine, it is not a Catholic saying either.
However, Meiderlin did not say this first.
In 1999, H. J. M. Nellen found the quote in a 17th Century writing from the Marco Antonio de Dominis(d. 1624). So is it Catholic or Protestant? Both, as it turns out (sort of).
...So, “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity” is not of Catholic origin via Augustine, nor is it a Protestant idea originating in Meiderlin. Ins,tead it is a quote from one of the most untrustworthy theologians in Church history: a twice-declared heretic who could not seem to unify with anybody!-- Marco Antonio de Dominis
Let the Bible speak its truth. In all things, truth can stand close examination. CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
