The Roman Catholic Church and Its Recognition of the Validity of Baptism in the Name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) from 100 A.D. to 500 A.D.

By Kulwant Singh Boora

The patristic period saw the shift towards baptism in the trinitarian form, being a later liturgical development, the original form being in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). It is granted that documentary evidence has been preserved quite remarkably from the patristic period to at least the fifth century that shows and demonstrates the recognition of baptism in the name of Jesus by the Roman Catholic Church. To such an extent that even the Roman Catholic Church has noted the validity of baptism in the name of Jesus in a recent call for ecumenical dialogue. Roman Catholic scholars and theologians alike are in agreement with the baptismal formula of the name of Jesus and make no pretense about it, to the degree that even during the Ante-Nicene period we find a trial of individual(s) who baptized in the name of Jesus flowing from period of the early Greek apologist(s). The patristic era to the fifth century will present a large body of literature that convincingly shows baptism in the name of Jesus being validly recognized even within literature housed within the collection of writings of St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who was said to oppose such a practice. The Roman Catholic Church at large, voiced through its religious leaders, Church Fathers, Pope and theologians within this period have noted the original form of baptism being in the name of Jesus thereby continuing to acknowledge its validity and recognition.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Aug 8, 2011
• ISBN: 9781463429058

Kulwant Singh Boora

The author was born in Birmingham, England, United Kingdom and is of Indian descent growing up in a Sikh family. He holds a Bachelor of Arts with Honors from Staffordshire University, England and also studied law at Sutton Coldfield College where he completed his Professional Diploma in Law and Higher Professional Diploma in Law in conjunction with the Institute of Legal Executives Tutorial College of Law; he went onto complete his Graduate Diploma in Law/CPE (Law Society of England and Wales Common Professional Examinations) with Hertfordshire University School of law, England. He studied theology and biblical interpretation with Kings Evangelical Divinity School and the University of Wales. Mr. Boora is also admitted as a Fellow and Legal Executive lawyer in the United Kingdom.

Book preview

Contents

Acknowledgements

1

Introduction

2

The Act Of The Apostles

3

The Transition From The Name Of Jesus (Acts 2:38) To The Father, Son And Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)

4

The History And Rise Of The Catholic Church

5

Post-Apostolic Baptism In The Jesus Name In The Patristic Era To The Fifth Century

6

Conclusion

Bibliography

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank God for all that He has done in my life and for giving me strength from day to day, without Him I would not be here.

To my parents whom I dearly love, that have been instrumental in my life, my father and mother who always believed in me thank you. I also extend appreciation to my brother and sisters and their respective families.

To my lovely and beautiful wife and two God given sons who have been very patient while I spent endless hours in research, studying and preparation of this book.

LIST OF SCRIPTURES

LIST OF JOURNALS

BIBLE VERSION

1

INTRODUCTION

The subject of post-New Testament baptism has always been a matter of extreme controversy since the introduction of the trinitarian formula that has its roots stemming from the scripture passage found in Matthew 28:19 . The real issue surrounding Matthew 28:19 prompts a number of important questions that center on the heart of its continual interpretation. Such questioning raises some important points of biblical and theological interest.

This questioning asks that is the real problem that Matthew 28:19 is wrongly seen and viewed as a baptismal formula or is it that it is incorrectly understood as a trinitarian formula? While their are presented two distinct questions that can be answered affirmatively, the rise of biblical criticism sought to address such matters by noting that Matthew 28:19 are not the exact words of Jesus, but an editorial makeover by the evangelist, namely, Matthew.

Others argued that Matthew 28:19 was an interpolation, scholars such as the Oxford University Professor of Theology, Frederick C. Conybeare heralded as a proponent of such a view argued that Matthew 28:19 was an interpolation and that the original Hebrew text of Matthew did not contain such a verse.¹ Even more recently, Professor of New Testament in the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, Adela Yarbro Collins, has also voiced concerns of a similar nature.

Collins like Conybeare, shared her participating view in the field of biblical scholarship that deconstructs reliance on Matthew 28:19 as an authentic passage. Collins argues that "There are problems with the assumption that this passage is authentic."² Others saw the chapter as superfluous; individuals such as the German Theologian and Church Historian, Professor Philip Schaff questioned its absence in the original Aramaic version.³

Even if it is assumed or hypothesized that Matthew 28:19 was part of the original text, others have convincingly argued an interpretation that lacks any form of trinitarian thinking, analyzing the text in its sitz im leben or life setting. One notable American scholar by the name of Professor Jane Schaberg raised an interesting observation with respect to the text in its life setting or viewing the text through its original life setting.

Professor Schaberg saw the text of Matthew 28:19 as a Jewish midrash⁴ on the Book of Daniel. In simple terms, Matthew 28:19 was not a text based upon trinitarian theology, thinking or dogma, but rather an interpretation that was constructed and built upon Daniel 7. The writer used Daniel 7 as the platform and template to build Matthew 28:19 in various stages by use of Jewish skills and tools of interpretation.⁵ Within the body of Schaberg’s scholarly work is the labor intense investigation that reshapes an approach that is plausible to fix an appropriate approach and solution to the inherent difficulties associated with Matthew 28:19.

The chronicle of Schaberg’s study is heightened by comments that demonstrate an appropriate level of skill, which involved substantial and adequate treatment of the subject matter. To this, we introduce the comments of Schaberg’s on this approach that ‘the ultimate aim of this work is to show that approaching Matt 28:16-20 from the angle of comparative midrash will offer solutions to the major exegetical problems raised by previous examinations of this passage.’⁶ Following this, several remarks are observed in the scholar’s work that challenges the trinitarian nature and characteristics of Matthew 28:19.

Characteristically speaking, one distinct observation of the author starts of with the view that ‘concerning the triadic phrase, it is probably not to be understood as a baptismal formula—that is, as the exact phrase used in baptizing…It is not properly speaking Trinitarian, nor, in terms of Matthew’s thinking, Trinitarian…The significance of the close joining of the three titles is not yet clear."⁷ It is conceivable that such insight in the work by Professor Schaberg would attract considerable attention in the field of biblical scholarship.

Fellow scholars, one would have thought, would seek to question Schaberg’s contribution to the field of biblical scholarship as profoundly untenable by seeking to question such scholarship as fundamentally floored, yet in contrast the opposite has been indentified. In fact, supporters of such a study are in fact found within the pool of Catholic scholars, namely, a Benedict Thomas Viviano, O.P. and former Professor of New Testament at the Aquinas Institute of Theology in America.

Viviano is of interest, since he rejects the doctrine of the trinity in the Old Testament, advocates the view that the fully developed doctrine of the trinity did not materialize until the close of the Christian Bible and embraces the study of Professor Schaberg, which notes that the triadic phrase in Matthew 28:19 would contribute to the later developed trintiarian baptismal formula,⁸ though it was not interpreted as such in its original setting nor was it originally intended by the author to be interpreted as a trinitarian formula. Viviano finds relief upon investigating the origins of such a phrase housed within the body of Schaberg’s work that explains how such a phrase could have arisen out of first century Judaism. However, others took a different view and stated that Matthew 28:19 must be understood by the prespective of Hellenism.

One such view was inaugurated in the work by the Norwegian-Swedish Theologian, the late Professor Anton Fridrichsen,⁹ Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Biblical Studies at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. Dr. Fridrichsen noted specifically that Matthew 28:19 is not a baptismal formula in the strict sense.¹⁰ Understandably, with the advent of the enlightenment it contributed to the continual rise of questioning regarding the trinitarian formula in the Matthian text, given its obscurity and absence in the early church in the book of Acts and the New Testament Epistles.

More pointedly, post-enlightenment scholars add to the continual recognition and validity of baptism in the name of Jesus in the book of Acts by recourse to testimonies contained in non-canonical works and literature of the second century. Such works, of course, testify to its widespread recognition and continued practice in the earliest Christian centuries of baptism in Jesus’ name. One distinct non-canonical work is noted by Robert E. Voorst, Professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary in Holland in the State of Michigan.¹¹

Professor Voorst’s work centered on the study of a late second century book described by Epiphanius of Salamis (Adv. Haer.30.16.6-9)–who is considered a Church Father–that was entitled the Ascents of James¹² that reveals some interesting notation with regards to baptism. No longer extant in its original form, this work was noted for making distinct reference to baptism in the name of Jesus and not the triadic¹³ or trinitarian form. In fact, we are informed that "It advocates observance of Mosaic law and baptism in the name of Jesus."¹⁴

Voorst’s work therefore informs the reader that alongside the book of Acts and New Testament Epistles, we have ancient literature and data that speaks volumes to the original form of baptism, being the name of Jesus. If such work is truly ancient as is noted by the scholar, it serves to credit the book of Acts for its own scribal inscriptions that depict and testify to the earliest form of water baptism carried over into the Ascents of James. Therefore it provides a witness to the earliest biblical liturgical baptismal formula in use and found in such non-canonical work having been copyrighted from the original work of authorship being the book of Acts.

Alongside this, there are other ancient witnesses, such as the Acts of Thecla and Paul that also speak of self-baptism performed ‘in the name of Jesus.’ This work testifies that baptism in the name of Jesus was a continual recognized practice of the original form stemming from the book of Acts in the second century. If the trinitarian form was largely recognized and an established form, then we should equally find non-canonical works that testify to its long established and continual practice stemming from the book of Acts, but as noted, the Acts and Epistles contain no reference of baptism in the name of the trinity whatsoever.

It is granted that with the rise of trinitarian theology or dogma centuries after the New Testament, it brought with it the introduction of the trinitarian form of baptism. But when did the actual transition take place to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost remains a long winded complex and at times a mysteriously convoluted explanation. Of course, the Acts of The Apostles introduces a baptismal mode or formula based upon the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38. Various other passages in Acts of the Apostles also allude