Catholics changed "formula" for baptizism??

  • Thread starter Thread starter sistermouse
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sistermouse

Guest
I heard an Apostolic/Pentacostal preacher say that in 326 AD, the Catholic Church changed the way people were baptized from baptizing in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) to baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). I think about 95% of their religion is based on Acts 2:38 and hatred of the Catholic Church. He said the CC had blinded the world to the proper way to baptize. How could this exist in our day??
 
I heard an Apostolic/Pentacostal preacher say that in 326 AD, the Catholic Church changed the way people were baptized from baptizing in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) to baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). I think about 95% of their religion is based on Acts 2:38 and hatred of the Catholic Church. He said the CC had blinded the world to the proper way to baptize. How could this exist in our day??
No expert here, but the Didache is from I think the early 2nd century (correction welcome)
and it says:
Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize** “into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit**” in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don’t have either, pour water three times on the head,** “into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit.” **Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.
Jon
 
While Acts and the Epistles in general always say " baptised in the name of Jesus", there is no evidence to suggest that was the formula used. In Matthew, however, Jesus himself calls on his disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
 
Whenever the term “baptized in the name of Jesus” is used in the book of Acts, it is to contrast with the baptism of John, since John’s baptism was just a ritual washing and not a regenerative baptism, the way Christian baptism is (see 1 Peter 3:21). The baptismal formula, as attested to from the Gospels, all through the Patristic age, and on down to the present day, has always been Trinitarian, and when you run across times in history that this has been called into doubt, the Church has always defended Trinitarian baptism. To say that the Church “changed the formula of baptism” not only has no basis in historical fact, it quite interestingly uses the Church’s own theological concept of a baptismal formula against it, which of course doesn’t work.

For more, see the following link:

catholic.com/tracts/trinitarian-baptism

-ACEGC
 
I heard an Apostolic/Pentacostal preacher say that in 326 AD, the Catholic Church changed the way people were baptized from baptizing in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) to baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). I think about 95% of their religion is based on Acts 2:38 and hatred of the Catholic Church. He said the CC had blinded the world to the proper way to baptize. How could this exist in our day??
Just ask him to show you a document from the first or second century that gives the order of baptism that they use because there are none. Beginning with the Apostles baptism has been done as Jesus said to “In the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit.”

We have documents going back to the very beginnings of Christianity that give tell of the right of baptism of the earliest Christians. The earliest one is The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles written as early as A.D. 50. It is exactly the same as we still use today in the Catholic Church. And there are examples from every age from then until now and it has not changed.
 
I heard an Apostolic/Pentacostal preacher say that in 326 AD, the Catholic Church changed the way people were baptized from baptizing in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) to baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). I think about 95% of their religion is based on Acts 2:38 and hatred of the Catholic Church. He said the CC had blinded the world to the proper way to baptize. How could this exist in our day??
He may have said that to justify his Apostolic/Pentacostal theology. They do not believe in the Triune God. They are resurrecting Sabellianism, or more commonly known as the Heresy of Modalism.
 
I heard an Apostolic/Pentacostal preacher say that in 326 AD, the Catholic Church changed the way people were baptized from baptizing in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) to baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). I think about 95% of their religion is based on Acts 2:38 and hatred of the Catholic Church. He said the CC had blinded the world to the proper way to baptize. How could this exist in our day??
Most of the new radical Christian-like sects must justify themselves by launching a preemptive attack on the Catholic Church. There is no other way to justify the whole “Baptism in Jesus’ name” heresy if not by attempting to prove that the early Church (Catholic/Orthodox) got it incorrect.

But you raise an interesting objection. If the Catholic Church really did “change” the formula early on, why do we only know this now? Why don’t we have any records of Christians baptizing in Christ’s name only? Why didn’t this opposition to the Trinity formula appear during the Protestant Reformation? I mean, after all, if you go so far as to deny the real presence in Communion, then denying the appropriateness of the Trinitarian baptismal formula should be there somewhere. But it isn’t.

Oneneness theology was invented by some guy who honestly probably couldn’t wrap his head around the concept of the Trinity (can’t blame him, it isn’t easy, after all) and therefore created Oneness to try to piece it together. In some cases it came up as Modalism (as someone mentioned), that God either manifested as the Father, then was incarnated as the Son, and is currently in the form of the Holy Spirit, or that all three are simply titles for Jesus Christ who can take whatever form he pleases.

The vast majority of Pentecostals, however are Trinitarian. Oneness adherents withdrew from the Assemblies of God after an AOG council reaffirmed the doctrine of the Trinity after a debate. The disaffected Oneness then began creating their own church organizations, the most prominent of which is the United Pentecostal Church.

I had a good friend who was Oneness. Once she invited me to her church for a service. I almost couldn’t tell the Oneness “streak” except for a few words that the pastor uttered that seemed a bit unorthodox, but were very subtle.
 
The date 326 A.D. is when some non-Catholic Christians state that the Catholic Church, was founded by the Emperor Constantine.

This is evidence of poor scholarship and ignorance of history. Even Protestant historians have de-bunked the myth - and yet it persists.
The church in Rome was by far the most important church in Christendom: it was situated in the ancient imperial capital of the empire; it had the largest congregation of Christians; and its roots went back to PETER AND PAUL, the two greatest saints in the church.
(A HANDBOOK OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, By: John Schwarz, page 153)

John Schwarz is a protestant writer.
 
No expert here, but the Didache is from I think the early 2nd century (correction welcome)
and it says:

Jon
Jimmy Akin dates the Didache in “The Fathers Know Best” to around the year 50 AD. I’ve seen some other dates that were a bit later, such as towards the end of the first or very beginning of the second century.
 
Jimmy Akin dates the Didache in “The Fathers Know Best” to around the year 50 AD. I’ve seen some other dates that were a bit later, such as towards the end of the first or very beginning of the second century.
Agreed, and goodness, regardless of these dates, they are all before 326 ad. The charge that the Church changed the formula is simply untrue.

Jon
 
I had a liturgical studies professor once who holds the opinion that there was a formula of baptism in the name of Jesus at some places in the Apostolic Age, but that it was always implicitly trinitarian. On the other hand, when “Apostolic” Pentecostals use a formula “in the name of Jesus” for their so-called baptism, it is meant to be anti-Trinitarian. BTW, my paternal grandmother, who was Pentecostal, despised the teachings of what she called “Jesus only” Pentecostals, exactly because of their denial of the Trinity. It has been my experience that the vast majority of Pentecostals, while certainly at odds with Catholicism on a number of important issues, are solidly Trinitarian.
 
I would submit there is no reasoning for infant baptisms, since when has a baby sinned?

Children should be taught at a age when they can understand the difference between right and wrong and make the choice to join the church — no going through the motions, if parents just want to happen, force, etc. A child should be taught and prepared for baptism.

Any evidence of this in Catholicism since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches child when they understand right from wrong?
 
Most of the new radical Christian-like sects must justify themselves by launching a preemptive attack on the Catholic Church. There is no other way to justify the whole “Baptism in Jesus’ name” heresy if not by attempting to prove that the early Church (Catholic/Orthodox) got it incorrect.

But you raise an interesting objection. If the Catholic Church really did “change” the formula early on, why do we only know this now? Why don’t we have any records of Christians baptizing in Christ’s name only? Why didn’t this opposition to the Trinity formula appear during the Protestant Reformation? I mean, after all, if you go so far as to deny the real presence in Communion, then denying the appropriateness of the Trinitarian baptismal formula should be there somewhere. But it isn’t.

Oneneness theology was invented by some guy who honestly probably couldn’t wrap his head around the concept of the Trinity (can’t blame him, it isn’t easy, after all) and therefore created Oneness to try to piece it together. In some cases it came up as Modalism (as someone mentioned), that God either manifested as the Father, then was incarnated as the Son, and is currently in the form of the Holy Spirit, or that all three are simply titles for Jesus Christ who can take whatever form he pleases.

The vast majority of Pentecostals, however are Trinitarian. Oneness adherents withdrew from the Assemblies of God after an AOG council reaffirmed the doctrine of the Trinity after a debate. The disaffected Oneness then began creating their own church organizations, the most prominent of which is the United Pentecostal Church.

I had a good friend who was Oneness. Once she invited me to her church for a service. I almost couldn’t tell the Oneness “streak” except for a few words that the pastor uttered that seemed a bit unorthodox, but were very subtle.
Agee’d, I agree with Ryan also. I believe in these type of conversations it would go a long way to state the “who” said exactly “what”. And with the actual words of the dialogue if at all possible. I see no sense in chasing around in circles with fringe theology based on bad history. At some point in the war of good and evil we will need to stop grouping people, which often means the good are thrown in with the bad. Often the followers are on a path of Blind Faith and “think” they have found the Holy Spirit. And they are most likely honestly seeking exactly that.

We are in a climatic period today. I have seen jaw dropping speechs in the last week by Northern Baptists who see the civil tragedy once again upon this nation.

And while most Pentecostals prefer to stick to the message of Calvary, I have no issue with it, especially when they are not trashing 2000-years of historical fact in ignorance and a lack of depth in sound Scripture and oral tradition.
 
I would submit there is no reasoning for infant baptisms, since when has a baby sinned?

Children should be taught at a age when they can understand the difference between right and wrong and make the choice to join the church — no going through the motions, if parents just want to happen, force, etc. A child should be taught and prepared for baptism.

Any evidence of this in Catholicism since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches child when they understand right from wrong?
I would submit its a great practice for “your” church. 👍

Obviously the Apostolic Churchs and most other Christian churchs disagree with you.

Faith is a infused Supernatural Virtue, that each receive at the moment of Baptism. The basis of our salvation is our faith. It is in fact a weapon against the Supernatural evil forces. There is no need to teach anything [as you state] there is plenty of time for that “after”. Its a responsibility of Christianity to protect the children who do not know better till the age of consciousness and ASAP. And not only your own children, but “all” children who are subjected to ignorance caused by many issues in society today.

Catholicism has been practicing this Sacrament longer that your church been in existance. 👍

Now if you would like to debate mans fallen state from Genesis and Adam and Eve which bought Sin/Death and is throughout the Bible to the New-Testament. Then of course we can have a Scriptural conversation in context. In fact if man was not in a fallen state from Adam and Eve in Sin/Death there would be no need for Calvary and the Redemption by Christ on the Cross. Why do you suppose Christ died on the Cross? What was the death on the Cross for?
 
St Paul clearly speaks on sin/death throughout Romans, where Adam is shown as transmitting death with sin. Read 5:12

The Didache

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father… and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Recognitions of Clement

But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: “Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian

[l]t behooves those to be baptized . . . so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God . . . because it is written “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Epistles 72 [73]: 21 [A.D. 252]).

As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

In the saving sacraments, when necessity compels and when God bestows his pardon, divine benefits are bestowed fully upon believers, nor ought anyone be disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69(76):12 [A.D. 254]).

Ambrose of Milan

The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism… “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (On Abraham 2:11:79-84 [A.D. 387]).

Paul alludes to infant baptism when he tells us that baptism replaces circumcision (Colossians 2:11). This is why the early Christians baptized infants on the eighth day after birth. The eighth day after birth is when Jewish boys were circumcised. Those who contend that infants shouldn’t be baptized have a faulty understanding of what baptism is. With baptism there is an infusion of grace, grace is what enables a child being raised in the faith to understand his or her need for God. The early church administered baptism in three ways; by immersion, sprinkling and pouring.

Tertullian

[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

The absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top