Birth of the New Testament Church

And a red flag goes up.

You refused to answer my questions, WHY?

Lets try again, these are simple questions:


Do you believe people are saved if they are baptized in the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit ?
Or does it HAVE to be name of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation?
Do you believe in the trinity, yes or no?

Here is an off-the-wall thought that does not really amount to a hill obeans, but maybe it means something.

When Jesus ascended to be with the Father, kperhaps then it iwas time to use all three names or just the One since they were together as Elohim..plural.. I said it is off-the-wall but a thought.

You make the perfect anti-christ!!

My bad Wansvic, I read it somewhere when taking a Mobile ed course certificate dealing precisely with the Bible and textual criticism. At the time I did not pay attention to it, then talking to other believers in the now discontinued Christian Discourse site, pieces started to come together.

In the article (if my memory serves me), it just pointed out that Eusebius was very concerned about Atanasius changing Scripture, but did not say what part of it.

Eventually I thought that it could be the baptism formula because in battling the Arrianism heresy, they may have wanted to assert the trinity.

Some other believers looked in their Eusebius collection in their Logos Bible software, and did not find anything.

I should have mark the article in Zotero, but did not because we had a lot to read and I did not connect the dots till later.

I do remember looking at:

https://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/

but cannot find the other article. I got to set some time to try to get to look it up and set it in zotero to have access to it.

Now remember that external evidence in this case is not as impactful as Internal evidence from the Bible itself.

If I find the article I will post it for you.

By the way, do you know of any app that does proximity searching in pdf in Macs?, that would help me find the article.

Thanks for responding. If you happen to come across it just let me know. Otherwise, it's not a big deal. Just found the information interesting.
And sorry, as far as an app I'm clueless. Wish I could help.

I like this question right here since it does seem to be a hot topic at times.

Coming from a family with a Catholic background (also Judaism - Protestantism) I was aware of some things the majority never had access to, or would never know even existed. I have taken the liberty to copy/paste an attachment for your viewing to show why I personally follow how they were baptized in the Book of Acts:



Look at last paragraph. This is from the Vatican (Catholic) Bible Catechism: They claim the baptismal formula in the Bible and up to the 4th century was done in "Jesus Name." And then it was changed in the 4th Century to Father-Son-Holy Ghost. I wonder then if that means by change..they changed the Bible in Matthew 28:19?? If so, which after knowing this information from the Vatican Bible Catechism, I began believing that Jesus did teach to baptize in His Name since we see in the Book of Acts them baptizing that way. Who knows, but the Vatican believes this is what actually happened and they wrote about it..

Found this that should help you, I do not remember if in some of the articles somewhere in the site I read about the issue:

http://www.godglorified.com/eusebius.htm

From above, most of Eusebius writings support the rendering of "in my name", just as the supposedly Hebrew Matthew has it.

Hope this helps.

I admit it would make more LOGICAL sense to baptize in the name of Jesus, since the Holy Spirit or Father didnt die for us, the Son did.

BUT: Lets say the catholics did change matthew 28:19, right... WHY didnt they change it in the book of Acts? They had access to that as well. And the problem is, by saying one part is changed, we open the discussion for "What about this verse, and that verse, were they changed too?"
Do you see my concern?

Here is how I see it: baptize in the NAME OF Father, Son and Holy Spirit means in the AUTHORITY of.
And in the name of Jesus is an abbreviation of it. I believe I can prove this from early church literature. I would have to do some digging but I remember reading where they say:

Baptize in the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit... and then later on they say "Those who were baptized in the name of the Lord".

"Grace" is not and never was "license to sin". Paul encourages the believer to obey the gospel, not the Law.

Calling grace "licence to sin" is engaging in a false dichotomy; implying that the only two options available are "obey the Law" or "sin without hindrance".

Thank you Marinerscatch for sharing with us the image.

I choose to discuss the Word of God because comparing denominations produces no fruit and usually most often causes strife. With all respect, it doesn't matter what I believe. What does matter is what the Word says is true and how it should be applied to one's life.

Denominations are formed by a person or people using their agreed upon perceptions of the Word of God. No doubt the individuals sincerely think their understanding is accurate. However, when the Word clearly contradicts a belief a person has, the person must be willing to discard the erroneous idea and replace it with the truth.

Many times if certain scriptures don’t line up with a denomination's belief(s) they are either ignored or contorted/twisted to make them seem to fit the established idea.

Sadly, many will refuse to consider or study out scripture presented on a topic if it is supplied by someone other than a member of their own denomination. Or, it contradicts what they have accepted as truth. Many become un-teachable because they hold tight to what they were taught and will not even consider pursuing further study of the Word.

Every established biblical concept must be confirmed by 2-3 witnesses in the Word itself. For the Word says so: “…at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” Deut 19:15.

As an example some denominations teach water baptism is not necessary for everyone. But we know this teaching is in error. One knows this because of the continuity (the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time) as recorded in the Bible. All groups of people; Jewish, Gentile, and Samaritans (half Jew-half Gentile) were instructed to do it and obeyed the instruction. (Acts 2:38; 8-12; 10:44-48) Every human being on this earth fits into one of these groups. This leaves no room for a person thinking, in error, that they are exempt from obeying this command. If this were not so, one would expect that the written record would have excluded one of the groups of people. It did not. Furthermore, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter said the message he preached was for those present, their children, and those afar off (meaning future generations). (Acts 2:39)

If one wants to know what formula is to be used during water baptism, they need only do a search of those recorded in the Word and answer will be found. If those recorded do not line up with what you have been taught, than you have received incorrect information because the Word does not lie and is given to instruct us in all righteousness. It's that simple.

Denominations are fallible – God’s Word is infallible (incapable of making mistakes or being wrong).

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

I am not trying to argue who is right/wrong here. I just am pointing out something happened. Opinion would have it that the Bible use to be hand written by the monks. Historians actually back this up. In my opinion, if there is an example set by God Himself (Christ) pertaining to this idea, people will trump what others read later by what God claims. So, if they changed the words "in Jesus Name" to "Father - Son - Holy Ghost," people would accept it because God claimed it.

And let's be honest here, only in today's time do I believe people are actually reading the Bible. I believe for centuries many never opened their Bibles or had Bibles because they could not read/write and just assume the Preacher/Priest is telling them the truth and why go home and read it for yourself.

But today, everyone seems to be reading their Bible's and PRAISE GOD for it!!

I just think in the 4th century many could not read/write. So changing something in the Bible would not be difficult to do and pass it off as legit. Today however, we all read our Bible. So if there was a change, we would be up the wall over it.

In my opinion then, it's based upon the time this event would have taken place. And in the 4th century, the only ones reading the Bible were the ones preaching it, not the ones coming to church as lay members. So, it would not have been difficult to do..

Scripture out of context AGAIN from you and your pals. I don't intend to lead you by the nose to truth. If God has not led you to His grace by now, then we can only wait until He does,......if He does.

Thank you for sharing.

But what shall we do when the Bible gives BOTH formulas?

My reason for sticking with Father, Son and Holy Ghost baptismal formula is #1 thats what historically churches have been practicing and #2 JESUS SAID IT!

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Bookmarked the link for later study. Thanks! I really appreciate it.

Hi Hevosmies, I want to express that from my point of view, we do not want to enter into a polemic, antagonistic mode, I would rather think that we are exploring something very important for us all, clarifying things of our beautiful faith.

I will share some thoughts that relate to your questions:

1 Salvation is of God, as a free gift, nothing we do can save us. The problem that I see, is that if God graciously gave us salvation and based on that He started a New Covenant (in which He puts the entry requirements, because He is the savior), if you do not baptize as ordered, you may get in trouble.

Now understand that I mean get in trouble, not lose salvation. For example you can find yourself in the tribulation. Notice that the loved Apostle John saw millions of people arriving to heaven. He was told that they were persons that had to wash their clothes in the tribulation.

One way one can interpret this, is that they were unrighteous to an extent (not because Jesus did not assign them His righteousness), but because they did not comply with the New Covenant stipulations: righteousness in OT times meant Covenantal compliance.

So if you do not comply with New Covenant compliance you may get in trouble (not that you will, we cannot be sure of that because we are not God, but we can use our rational man to check if things are so, so that we are not deceived, and do as God requires and not as some tradition has purported it to be).

2 Name of Jesus Christ: if He really is your savior, if He really is your Lord, if all knees will bow down to Him, if His name is above all other name, if He is the author and executer of faith, if there is no salvation under any other name, what name should one baptize under?

I think Peter under the influence of the Holy Spirit was trying to let that point clear when inspired to utter Acts 2:38.

3 the trinity is problematic:

Long time ago, some believers noted that using anthropomorphism when referring to God is wrong. God is a particular Being different from us.

So they came with a term to refer to the manifestations of His presence that we experience in this physical realm: greek: hypostasis.

Hypostasis is a greek term meaning: substantive reality, that is a reality that can be perceived as it affect our senses.

Definitively we could not say it was human, because although is similar, by Being God then is different. The Angel of Yahweh (which is used interchangeably with God Himself), is a hypostasis: substantive reality.

The problem started when the greek term hypostasis had to be translated to Latin.

Someone came up with the term Latin: personae. Personae in Latin means the mask that and actor at a play back then used in a performance to denote the participation of a particular character in the play.

Tertullian was not very convinced, but since the Bible says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (like a mask), then they went with it.

What baffles me, is when the Latin term personae (a mask), became modern term person (a totally different thing)?

I do not agree with the term person in the trinity definition because God is above and beyond the person concept. Not only me, but many serious researchers, have come to the conclusion that using the term person with relation to God is disrespectful, because He is way above that.

Notice that Ireneaus mentioned something more in line with the original (old) version of trinity:

"Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the hands of God that He uses to bring believers close to His heart". Notice that hands (arms, etc.) are not different persons, but inherent parts of 1 divine Being". [very rough paraphrase].

They are Divine hypostasis of God, perceived as persons by us, but being way beyond that.

Your questions are very important ones, the problem is that we all should be researching and getting deep in them to have due diligence that the Bible expects of us:

Check all, retain what is good, search the Scriptures to see if things are so... etc. We all have an undelegable responsibility to dig deep because this is about our eternal destiny.

For argument sake:

Let's just say the words of Jesus were changed in Matthew 28:19, God is a fair God. After all, He made provisions to save us by dying for us. I don't think God is going to withhold anyone from heaven because the Bible was/could have been changed. God knew in the 4th century this would happen. He would not hold anyone accountable for not knowing they are being deceived by baptismal formula. But as for myself, I did get baptized Acts 2:38 since I knew about the Vatican Bible Catechism and it's claim of there being foul play. I figured if the first church was baptizing this way (we see Peter, Timothy, and Paul baptizing this way in the Book of Acts)(that is 3 examples by 3 different people)(kind of makes it seem this is how they were actually baptizing in the first church) then I will follow the first churches example 100%.

But then again, I believe Christ when he taught we are save by the Mercy of God over Paul's attempt at the Grace of God!!

Sadly, as Marinerscatch post shows the catholic church changed the apostolic method of water baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus to "in the name of... The change was made at the Nicean Council in 325 a.d. and the counterfeit continues through today.

We are told that everything we do in word and deed is to done in Jesus name. And that in Jesus dwells all of the fullness of Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:9) So what is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
You asked why the catholic church didn't change the references in the book of Acts. They got away with insisting people followed their new mandate. But, surely thought twice about modifying God's actual Words. King David states that the Lord will preserve His words for ever. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6-7

Also, in order for a concept to be established the Word says it must be confirmed 2-3 times as a witness of itself. There are 4 recorded occurrences of water baptism and in each the people are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ok, I don't get this one. If you say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...you're still saying Jesus name by saying the Son. So is there really a problem with that?