Water Baptism: A Pagan and Jewish Rite but not Christian, Proven by Scripture and History Confirmed by the Lives of Saints Who Were Never Baptized with WaterMoon, James H.
Religion
Water Baptism: A Pagan and Jewish Rite but not Christian, Proven by Scripture and History Confirmed by the Lives of Saints Who Were Never Baptized with Water
Moon, James H.
Baptism
Because Peter and others continued to baptize with water is no evidence
to the contrary. They continued their old Jewish customs generally. They
pronounced it necessary to abstain from certain meats. They insisted
that Paul should adhere to circumcision. They refused to eat with
Gentiles. With such Jewish proclivities how could they at once abandon
water baptism?[26]
Some evidently realized that John's water baptism had ended at
Pentecost, but they were not prepared to drop it entirely, so sought to
perpetuate it by repeating the words, "In the name of Jesus, Lord or
Christ." They claimed no divine authority for using this formula and the
disciples of water baptism in our day mostly discard it.[27]
Baptism with the formula, "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit"[28] is not to be considered in connection with the apostles and
first Christians, as they never mention it and evidently never practised
it. Such formula was unknown at that time. It came in as an
afterthought; a human invention of later date.
The great diversity in the form of expression used by each of the
evangelists and Peter in defining Christ's commission to his apostles is
positive evidence that they understood him to prescribe no formula for
baptism and it is confirmation that no formula was given that they and
the first Christians for ages adhered to no one set form of words when
baptizing with water.
"In His name," as Christ is quoted by Luke, and in substance by Mark,
John and Peter, always implies in, into or with his Spirit or power, and
not a common given name which mortals may utter. In this name or power
Christ commanded his apostles to preach.[29]
"Into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," as in Matthew[30]
alone Christ's command is interpreted, has the same implication and not
a mere name or formula which human lips may sound. To repeat these words
in connection with baptism is to substitute the voice of man for the
power of God.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: Mat. 28.19]
[Footnote 2: Mat. 28.15]
[Footnote 3: Mat. 28.19; Mark 16.15; Luke 24.47; Jon. 20.21; Acts 1.8;
Acts 10.42; 1 Cor. 1.17]
[Footnote 4: Acts 1.4, 5; Acts 11.16]
[Footnote 5: Acts 1.8]
[Footnote 6: Acts 1.5; Acts 11.16; Acts 1.8]
[Footnote 7: Acts 11.15, 16]
[Footnote 8: Acts 10.42, 45]
[Footnote 9: Jon. 20.21; Jon. 1.33; Jon. 21.15, 17]
[Footnote 10: Luke 24.47, 49]
[Footnote 11: Luke 3.16; Luke 24.47, 49]
[Footnote 12: Mark 16.9, 20]
[Footnote 13: Mat. 28.19 R.v.]
[Footnote 14: Mat. 28.19]
[Footnote 15: Mat. 28.19; Acts 8.12, 13; Acts 8.38; Acts 9.18; Acts
16.15, 33; Acts 18.8, 25; Acts 2.38; Acts 8.16; Acts 10.48; Acts 19.5]
[Footnote 16: Acts 10.42]
[Footnote 17: Acts 11.15; Acts 10.44; Acts 11.16]
[Footnote 18: Acts 10.44]
[Footnote 19: Acts 11.16]
[Footnote 20: Acts 2.4]
[Footnote 21: Acts 2.16]
[Footnote 22: Joel 2.28]
[Footnote 23: Acts 2.4]
[Footnote 24: Acts 10.44, 45]
[Footnote 25: Acts 1.5; Acts 10.16; Acts 2.16, 18; Joel 2.28]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account