Baptism in Jesus’ name, Trinitarian style.

[1689Dave]

Oh, that's okay - I never take the 1689 Baptist confession too seriously either.

I only trust it so far.

 

[DPMartin]

Baptism in Jesus’ name, Trinitarian style.

The Command: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 (KJV 1900)

The Interpretation: “(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” Acts 8:16 (KJV 1900)

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” Acts 10:48 (KJV 1900)

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 19:5 (KJV 1900)

“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.” Acts 2:38 (KJV 1900)

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Romans 6:3 (KJV 1900)


Why did it change from the Apostle's method?


The baptismal formula was changed from the Apostles’ baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.


Baptism p263 Catholic Encyclopedia:

…” of this sacrament, the act of baptism must be expressed, and the matter and form be united to leave no doubt of the meaning of the ceremony. In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate persons of the Holy Trinity.”

The result? The Pope undermined Christ’s intention and the Apostles’ authority and gave it to himself. Practically All of creedal Christendom follows the Catholic formula instead of scripture on the matter.

Mat 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:

If Jesus says Father Son and Holy Ghost, or Spirit nothing supersedes that, if the church makes it the rule that all will be baptized as such according to Jesus what’s wrong with that? The church probably wanted constancy through out its organization anyway. And you can’t go wrong if you do what Jesus says, correct? It was a wise decision to do so by the Pope at the time, it settles internal bickering that would be like the OP.

also were you at any acts of baptism done by any of the original twelve. If not, then you have no proof that they didn’t say Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost while doing a baptism, do you?

Besides it looks like the apostles got the job done, doesn’t it?

 

[1689Dave]

Mat 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:

If Jesus says Father Son and Holy Ghost, or Spirit nothing supersedes that, if the church makes it the rule that all will be baptized as such according to Jesus what’s wrong with that? The church probably wanted constancy through out its organization anyway. And you can’t go wrong if you do what Jesus says, correct? It was a wise decision to do so by the Pope at the time, it settles internal bickering that would be like the OP.

also were you at any acts of baptism done by any of the original twelve. If not, then you have no proof that they didn’t say Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost while doing a baptism, do you?

Besides it looks like the apostles got the job done, doesn’t it?

You are rejecting Jesus and the Apostle's authority, just as the Pope did. There is a revelation of the Trinity in the way Jesus and the Apostles baptized believers. If you reject them, all of the authority in their words and acts go too.

 

[Albion]

"There is a revelation of the Trinity in the way Jesus and the Apostles baptized believers. If you reject them, all of the authority in their words and acts go too."

1) Jesus never baptized anyone, and

2) He personally directed his Apostles to baptize using the Trinitarian baptismal formula, not the opposite as you claimed.

So if anyone here is rejecting the authority of Jesus and of his Apostles, he'd be opposed to the Trinitarian baptismal formula that almost all churches use, including all the Eastern Christian churches that have used it since the beginning of the Church and before any decrees of a Pope.

 

[DPMartin]

You are rejecting Jesus and the Apostle's authority, just as the Pope did. There is a revelation of the Trinity in the way Jesus and the Apostles baptized believers. If you reject them, all of the authority in their words and acts go too.

did you read my posting?

 

[1689Dave]

did you read my posting?

Yes, and it seems you favor Antichrist (so-called by all reformational creeds) over Jesus and the apostles.

 

[Albion]

Yes, and it seems you favor Antichrist (so-called by all reformational creeds) over Jesus and the apostles.

Your posts are sounding more and more bizarre.

For any believer to follow the Bible's directive when it comes to baptism, he certainly does not become, ipso facto, a devotee of the Antichrist. Not even if the Reformation-era Popes had actually been Antichrist.

 

[1689Dave]

Your posts are sounding more and more bizarre.

For any believer to follow the Bible's directive when it comes to baptism, he certainly does not become, ipso facto, a devotee of the Antichrist. Not even if the Reformation-era Popes WERE Antichrist.

All of the reformational creeds say the papacy is the antichrist. I believe he controls many other than Catholic churches today through their shared doctrines, including this one.

 

[Albion]

All of the reformational creeds say the papacy is the antichrist.

I don't recall that the (Thirty-nine) Articles of Religion mention the Antichrist, and this is possibly the most famous of the Reformation era creedal statements.

Where in it is the Papacy described as the antichrist??

 

[1689Dave]

I don't recall that the (Thirty-nine) Articles of Religion mention the Antichrist, and this is possibly the most famous of the Reformation era creedal statements.

Where in it is the Papacy described as the antichrist??

Creeds naming the papacy as the Antichrist;

The first written history suggests Arnulf, the archbishop of Reims in the 10th century identified the Papacy as the Antichrist. Later Joachim of Fiore in the 12th century preached the Papacy was the Antichrist. This led to the martyrdom of many Albigenses, Anabaptists, and others who in part embraced his views. And the archbishop Eberhard II in 1240 also related the papacy to the Antichrist. Synopsis of the End Times; A look at the popular beliefs of today by Mike Morrill.

From The Westminster Confession which also with some adjustments became the 1st and 2nd London Baptist Confessions.

Chapter XXV

Of the Church

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.



And from the preface to the Canons of Dort;

For this Church being by God’s mighty hand set free from the tyranny of the Romish Antichrist, & from the fearful idolatry of Popery.....



Martin Luther declared, “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520). According to The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.



I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” According to Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.

John Knox concluded that the Papacy was “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.” The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.



“Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.)

Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.



“the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2).

Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America):” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.



Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): “The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them.” According to The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.



John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.



A Great Cloud of Witnesses: “Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” According to All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.

 

[1689Dave]

I don't recall that the (Thirty-nine) Articles of Religion mention the Antichrist, and this is possibly the most famous of the Reformation era creedal statements.

Where in it is the Papacy described as the antichrist??

Archbishop Cranmer had established the identity of the antichrist with the Pope and made it a fundamental point of Anglican doctrine. For instance, the “Exhortation to Obedience” that appears in the First Book of Homilies compiled by Cranmer for publication in 1547 (his successor, Matthew Parker expressly mentions the Homilies in Article Thirty-Five of the Thirty-Nine Articles) explicitly identifies the Pope as the antichrist:

 

[Josiah]

This thread is not about the Antichrist.



.

 

[1689Dave]

This thread is not about the Antichrist.



.

The Antichrist Pope begins my article. Try reading it to see what it says before condemning it.

 

[Albion]

All of the reformational creeds say the papacy is the antichrist. I believe he controls many other than Catholic churches today through their shared doctrines, including this one.

Creeds naming the papacy as the Antichrist;

First, you say (as you have said before) that ALL the Reformation era creeds say that the Papacy is the antichrist, and then when I refer you to one of the best-known of the Reformation-era creed which, to my recollection, DOES NOT MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT...

You change your accusation to say that, well, there are some...and then cut and past a lengthy passage that talks about the ones you would rather that we consider!

At the least, you could have the decency to admit your mistakes when they are shown to you, and especially after you've made a lot of very serious accusations against other members of the forum who explained the facts to you.

 

[Albion]

Archbishop Cranmer had established the identity of the antichrist with the Pope and made it a fundamental point of Anglican doctrine. For instance, the “Exhortation to Obedience” that appears in the First Book of Homilies compiled by Cranmer for publication in 1547 (his successor, Matthew Parker expressly mentions the Homilies in Article Thirty-Five of the Thirty-Nine Articles) explicitly identifies the Pope as the antichrist:

Stop naming documents that are not CREEDS of any Reformation Church! This, after you'd told us, wrongly, that all the Reformation church creeds identify the Pope as antichrist!

"All of the reformational creeds say the papacy is the antichrist."

It's embarrassing to watch you squirm and try to change the subject after you've been informed of the facts.

 

[1689Dave]

Stop naming documents that are not CREEDS of any Reformation Church!

It's embarrassing to watch you squirm and try to change what you had stated in one of your pontifications.

It proves you are wrong.

 

[1689Dave]

First, you say (as you have said before) that ALL the Reformation era creeds say that the Papacy is the antichrist, and then when I refer you to one of the best-known of the Reformation-era creed which, to my recollection, DOES NOT MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT...

You change your accusation to say that, well, there are some...and then cut and past a lengthy passage that talks about the ones you would rather that we consider!

At the least, you could have the decency to admit your mistakes when they are shown to you, and especially after you've made a lot of very serious accusations against other members of the forum who explained the facts to you.

What part did the Anglicans play in the Reformation? Didn't they waffle back and forth? Didn't your church fund the Westminster Confession?

 

[Albion]

Stop! Trying to "save face" by posting those curt and cutesy replies or by trying desperately to change the subject only results in killing the discussion.

 

[1689Dave]

Stop! Trying to "save face" by posting those curt and cutesy replies or by trying desperately to change the subject only results in killing the discussion.

My post begins with the Papacy. And his actions prove he is the Antichrist. The Anglican Cranmer preached it until they killed him along with many others. Why would they kill so many? Any ideas?

 

[1689Dave]

My post begins with the Papacy. And his actions prove he is the Antichrist. The Anglican Cranmer preached it until they killed him along with many others. Why would they kill so many? Any ideas?

Archbishop Cranmer had established the identity of the antichrist with the Pope and made it a fundamental point of Anglican doctrine. For instance, the “Exhortation to Obedience” that appears in the First Book of Homilies compiled by Cranmer for publication in 1547 (his successor, Matthew Parker expressly mentions the Homilies in Article Thirty-Five of the Thirty-Nine Articles) explicitly identifies the Pope as the antichrist.

You still have not refuted this. Lots of moaning but nothing of substance.