Does Matthew 28:20 really guarantee that the early Christian Church would not go a stray?

[benhur]

When I first started reading I was like, wow I am really not that man I had no clue what that verse meant. . I do agree I do have personal understanding, it is the biblical understanding I was referring to, as you mentioned lower.

Thank you for the honest answer. When I ask my son this question he always says he knows if they are preaching the true gospel by checking to see if what they say lines up with what he reads in the bible. If they’re preaching doesn’t line up with his interpretations then they are wrong. But some how doesn’t believe he is only listening to people that preach what he wants to hear. I have much more respect for someone will to say “All I know for sure”…than I do for my own son that continually tells me he is not wrong on his interpretations, even the ones other Protestant scholars have shown to be incorrect.

Sorry for the rant. Thanks for your response.

HI MT,

I am fascinated by your situation, and was pleased to “participate” in really what is an old as time dilemma. Maybe you are more respectful to me not being related, but some would say not much difference between saying “all I know for sure” and "I believe my interpretations to be right’. For sure things seem clearer from a distance, not getting lost in all the minutia that a close relationship and much talk can bring. It is easier to keep it simple at first. But thank you for your kind words.

Blessings

 

[Arandur]

Matthew 28:20, in Greek, reads:

διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

A more accurate translation of “πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας” would be “all the days” since “πάσας” means “every” or “all” and “ἡμέρας” means “days.” A transliteration would read “…lo, I am with you all of the days, even to the end/completion of the age.” This removes the supposed conflict the OP presented.

That, and other references about what that “age” is. Revelation refers to the current age: it’s the Church age. IIRC, Peter and Paul refer to “these last days.” Also there are statements about “this generation,” using the figurative of that term to apply to the whole and new generation of the Baptized Family of God (the Church).

It is thus stated clearly in Scripture that they were living in the last age, the age of Christ’s Church. They expected Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be with His Body, the Church, until Christ came again.

BTW, “until” doesn’t necessarily mean that something will “cease” after, either. Even in English. Just check the various uses of that term in Scripture.

 

[mtolympus]

Wow. I didn’t realize that the question in the OP was intended to have my answer be dismissed summarily just because I’m a Lutheran. I answered the question honestly and, I knew that it would not be one that the Roman Catholic Church would teach. I’m not here to argue but to learn. My faith in Jesus is very important to me - I believe that I am to be sharing Jesus to others and that, as He states in Matthew 18:20, He will be with me and all others who work to share what He did for all of us on Calvary. I look forward to the day that all of us who are followers of Christ will finally be home with Him in heaven.

God be with you, me and all other Christians as we work to spread the message of the Word. Blessings to you,

Rita

I was very interested in your answer and believe you have a great point. The last three verses of Matthew are Jesus’ instructions to the eleven disciples. He told them to “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations.” He gave them specific instructions: “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” His promise is directly linked to those willing to go out and teach the nations to live His commandments.

 

[kimg901]

I was very interested in your answer and believe you have a great point. The last three verses of Matthew are Jesus’ instructions to the eleven disciples. He told them to “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations.” He gave them specific instructions: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." His promise is directly linked to those willing to go out and teach the nations to live His commandments.

So tell me MT, if they were commanded to observe ALL then what need was there for a restoration? Did Jesus forget some things while on earth? So he willingly sent them out to preach the Gospel only to let them die for nothing because he was going to let men corrupt his word? Curious.

 

[mtolympus]

So tell me MT, if they were commanded to observe ALL then what need was there for a restoration? Did Jesus forget some things while on earth? So he willingly sent them out to preach the Gospel only to let them die for nothing because he was going to let men corrupt his word? Curious.

Christianity is the largest religion in the world. That seems like a roaring success for eleven disciples. Doctrines and ordinances were changed over time and had to be restored.

 

[TonyBS]

Christianity is the largest religion in the world. That seems like a roaring success for eleven disciples. Doctrines and ordinances were changed over time and had to be restored.

It May just be, that this is applicable to the largest religion in the world!

Matthew 20:16“So the last shall be first, and the first last.”

Regards Tony

 

[LivingWaters7]

Christianity is the largest religion in the world. That seems like a roaring success for eleven disciples. Doctrines and ordinances were changed over time and had to be restored.

What do you believe are the best evidences that:

1. Doctrines and Ordinances/Sacraments of the Church established by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago were changed (and if there were indeed changes, these were uninspired changes)
2. They were restored in the LDS church

 

[mtolympus]

It May just be, that this is applicable to the largest religion in the world!

Matthew 20:16“So the last shall be first, and the first last.”

Regards Tony

 

[kimg901]

Christianity is the largest religion in the world. That seems like a roaring success for eleven disciples. Doctrines and ordinances were changed over time and had to be restored.

But what your church says needed to be restored is found nowhere in the bible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Christianity is the largest religion in the world. That seems like a roaring success for eleven disciples.

So it’s just about numbers?

Doctrines and ordinances were changed over time and had to be restored.

Conspiracy theory.

 

[mtolympus]

What do you believe are the best evidences that:

1. Doctrines and Ordinances/Sacraments of the Church established by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago were changed (and if there were indeed changes, these were uninspired changes)
2. They were restored in the LDS church

1 - Baptism

2- “We believe in baptism by immersion for the remission of sins” Joseph Smith

 

[RebeccaJ]

1 - Baptism

2- “We believe in baptism by immersion for the remission of sins” Joseph Smith

Assertions are not evidence.

Immersion is legitimate as well as affusion. What evidence can you provide that affusion has not always (anciently)been understood as sufficient?

 

[LivingWaters7]

1 - Baptism

2- “We believe in baptism by immersion for the remission of sins” Joseph Smith

The Catholic Church has always practiced baptism by immersion. The Catholic Church practices baptism by both immersion and pouring, down to this day. While the Western (Roman) Catholic church may perform baptism by pouring more frequently, the Eastern Catholic churches (in communion with the Pope) perform immersion baptisms more frequently. It was never lost.

 

[mtolympus]

But what your church says needed to be restored is found nowhere in the bible.

Peter said that Jesus, whom heaven had received, would not return until the time of the restoration.

“Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be wiped away, and that the Lord may grant you times of refreshment and send you the Messiah already appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.” (Acts 3:19-21)

 

[gazelam]

Assertions are not evidence.

Immersion is legitimate as well as affusion. What evidence can you provide that affusion has not always (anciently)been understood as sufficient?

In his massive work on baptism in the early Christian church, Everett Ferguson wrote:

The comprehensive survey of the evidence compiled in this study gives a basis for a fresh look at this subject and seeks to give coherence to that evidence while addressing seeming anomalies. The Christian literary sources, backed by secular word usage and Jewish religious immersions, give an overwhelming support for full immersion as the normal action. Exceptions in cases of a lack of water and especially of sickbed baptism were made.

Submersion was undoubtedly the case for the fourth and fifth centuries in the Greek East and only slightly less certain for the Latin West. Was this a change from an earlier practice, a selection out of options previously available, or a continuation of the practice of the first three centuries? It is the contention of this study that the last interpretation best accords with the available facts. Unless one has preconceived ideas about how an immersion would be performed, the literary, art, and archaeological evidence supports this conclusion. (Everett Ferguson,* Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries*, p 857)

The Epistle of Barnabas states:

Blessed are they that set their hope on the cross,** and go down into the water**,… because we go down into the water laden with sins and filth. and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the spirit. (The Apostolic Fathers, page 185)

In addition, around 250 AD, Cyprian was asked the question: Could those who were sick and infirm merit God’s grace and be “accounted legitimate Christians” is they had only been sprinkled and not immersed? (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:400)

It seems an odd question to ask were affusion already an accepted practice.

Will Durant observed: By the ninth century, the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by aspersion - sprinkling - as less dangerous to health in the Northern climes… (Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, pg 738)

 

[RebeccaJ]

In his massive work on baptism in the early Christian church, Everett Ferguson wrote:

The comprehensive survey of the evidence compiled in this study gives a basis for a fresh look at this subject and seeks to give coherence to that evidence while addressing seeming anomalies. The Christian literary sources, backed by secular word usage and Jewish religious immersions, give an overwhelming support for full immersion as the normal action. Exceptions in cases of a lack of water and especially of sickbed baptism were made.

Submersion was undoubtedly the case for the fourth and fifth centuries in the Greek East and only slightly less certain for the Latin West. Was this a change from an earlier practice, a selection out of options previously available, or a continuation of the practice of the first three centuries? It is the contention of this study that the last interpretation best accords with the available facts. Unless one has preconceived ideas about how an immersion would be performed, the literary, art, and archaeological evidence supports this conclusion. (Everett Ferguson,* Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries*, p 857)

The Epistle of Barnabas states:

Blessed are they that set their hope on the cross,** and go down into the water**,… because we go down into the water laden with sins and filth. and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the spirit. (The Apostolic Fathers, page 185)

In addition, around 250 AD, Cyprian was asked the question: Could those who were sick and infirm merit God’s grace and be “accounted legitimate Christians” is they had only been sprinkled and not immersed? (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:400)

It seems an odd question to ask were affusion already an accepted practice.

Will Durant observed: By the ninth century, the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by aspersion - sprinkling - as less dangerous to health in the Northern climes… (Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, pg 738)

Right, there is nothing here that indicates affusion is illicit. Sprinkling is not the same as affusion. Aspersion, affusion and immersion are all legitimate, but the Roman Catholic Church most commonly uses affusion (pouring) not sprinkling.

Adults go down into the water to be baptized at my parish. And rise from it, and are baptized using affusion.

There is no evidence that the early Church was as particular as the Mormon practice. That is, that a piece of clothing or big toe breaking the surface requires re-baptism. The Mormon practice is not the practice of the early Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In addition, around 250 AD, Cyprian was asked the question: Could those who were sick and infirm merit God’s grace and be “accounted legitimate Christians” is they had only been sprinkled and not immersed? (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:400)

It seems an odd question to ask were affusion already an accepted practice.

It would help you, and all LDS to understand, that often the ECF’s addressed controversies, such as heresies and schisms. There was what had always been practiced, that was not questioned and was not defended, until someone or a group of someone’s, tried to do or teach something different. Rejecting the baptism of the infirm by pouring was something different.

In the matter of the apostates, it was a unique and terrible circumstance, where Christians were given the choice to worship the Emperor of Rome (as a god) or be killed. Many Christians took the choice to worship the Emperor. When this particular persecution ended, those who had made this choice still considered themselves Christian. But there was a schism, between the leaders of the Church in Rome, who believed the lapsed faithful were no longer Christians and therefore should be re-baptized and those leaders who believed that repentance was how a lapsed Christian should be received back into the Church.

Novatia was at first against re-baptism, so his enemies attacked his suitability for Holy Orders, based on their claim that he wasn’t really baptized. It was a political maneuver. Novatia had been baptized on his sick bed, by a Catholic priest or bishop, many years before Cyprian defended Novatia’s baptism. (Novatia was not just some unknown guy who received an odd kind of baptism. He was a leader in the Roman church.)

Cyprian was addressing the entire circumstance of the “lapsed faithful” schism, including defending Novatia’s ordination and baptism. He lays out the theological argument for accepting Novatia’s baptism as legitimate, which is very sound (and Biblical), and still used today when defending the Church against her enemies.

Btw, the schism was settled in a council, and I’m fairly certain it has been explained to you that we believe our councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[gazelam]

It would help you, and all LDS to understand, that often the ECF’s addressed controversies, such as heresies and schisms. There was what had always been practiced, that was not questioned and was not defended, until someone or a group of someone’s, tried to do or teach something different. Rejecting the baptism of the infirm by pouring was something different.

In the matter of the apostates, it was a unique and terrible circumstance, where Christians were given the choice to worship the Emperor of Rome (as a god) or be killed. Many Christians took the choice to worship the Emperor. When this particular persecution ended, those who had made this choice still considered themselves Christian. But there was a schism, between the leaders of the Church in Rome, who believed the lapsed faithful were no longer Christians and therefore should be re-baptized and those leaders who believed that repentance was how a lapsed Christian should be received back into the Church.

Novatia was at first against re-baptism, so his enemies attacked his suitability for Holy Orders, based on their claim that he wasn’t really baptized. It was a political maneuver. Novatia had been baptized on his sick bed, by a Catholic priest or bishop, many years before Cyprian defended Novatia’s baptism. (Novatia was not just some unknown guy who received an odd kind of baptism. He was a leader in the Roman church.)

Cyprian was addressing the entire circumstance of the “lapsed faithful” schism, including defending Novatia’s ordination and baptism. He lays out the theological argument for accepting Novatia’s baptism as legitimate, which is very sound (and Biblical), and still used today when defending the Church against her enemies.

Btw, the schism was settled in a council, and I’m fairly certain it has been explained to you that we believe our councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.

I appreciate the explanation of the Cyprian/Novatian issue. But I must ask whether you are conflating the Cyprian/Novatian issue with the “baptism of the infirmed by pouring” issue. In Cyprian’s letter to his son Magnus (see newadvent.org/fathers/050675.htm) the Novatian issue is addressed, and then separately the issue of baptism of the infirmed by pouring is also addressed in section 12.

Also, you state that rejecting the baptism of the infirmed was something that wasn’t done before. However, part of Cyprian’s response was to say “In this point, my diffidence and modesty prejudges none, so as to prevent any from feeling what he thinks right, and from doing what he feels to be right” and also “I have replied, dearest son, to your letter, so far as my poor ability prevailed; and I have shown, as far as I could, what I think; prescribing to no one, so as to prevent any prelate from determining what he thinks right”. Would he really be saying that he was only expressing his opinion and that others have a right to their opinion if the practice were already established? He had very strong opinions regarding Novatian saying “Novatian neither ought to be nor can be expected, inasmuch as he also is without the Church and acting in opposition to the peace and love of Christ”.

In addition, on one occasion the issue arose as to whether one who had been sprinkled could receive the priesthood. Eusebius quoting Cornelius (Roman Bishop) stated “All the clergy and many of the laity resisted it, since it was not lawful that one baptized on his sick bed by aspersion, as he was, should be promoted into any order of the clergy”. (Eusebius,* Ecclesiastical History*, 6:266) Those who did accept sprinkling seemed to recognize that it did not carry the same weight as immersion.

 

[gazelam]

What do you believe are the best evidences that:

1. Doctrines and Ordinances/Sacraments of the Church established by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago were changed (and if there were indeed changes, these were uninspired changes)

How about the infallible words of Pope Adrian VI in 1522?

“We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

 

[spedteacherita]

In addition, around 250 AD, Cyprian was asked the question: Could those who were sick and infirm merit God’s grace and be “accounted legitimate Christians” is they had only been sprinkled and not immersed? (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:400)

It seems an odd question to ask were affusion already an accepted practice.

Will Durant observed: By the ninth century, the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by aspersion - sprinkling - as less dangerous to health in the Northern climes… (Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, pg 738)

I’m curious to know what Cyprian’s answer to the question was…

Blessings,

Rita