Justin Martyr He was the first recorded person to change from the baptismal formula; used by all the

Apostles, the one in Jesus name, (Acts 2:38 formula) to a trinity type. His exact words are as follows: "I baptize you in the name of the God the father and the Lord of all, and of our savior, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost". As he did not Jesus was God the father, manifested in the flesh. Even as the Apostles taught, is the reason behind the change. Now Origen (Philosopher) and Tertillian (Lawyer) became believers via the teachings of Justin Martyr's, change the baptismal formula to just in Matthew 28:19 today. Now Justin Martyr believed and taught like the Jews of that time, that the name of God was a mystery and no man could know it. It was his unbiblical belief that the name of Jesus as being different from the father's name (Contradiction of John 5:43) and the Holy Ghost's, (The spirit was sent in Jesus name.)this laid the foundation for the different trinites, that would later come in the "Christian World". Unknown to most modern Christians, a theological revolution began with the fervent apologetics of a man named Justin Martyr, then preaching and teaching in Rome. Justin Martyr introduced a concept unheard of among earlier Christians, namely that Jesus Christ was "in the second place" to the Father. Second place?? What did he mean by that? Nobody had ever suggested that Jesus was in second place to the Father. What could this statement suggest? An understudy of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, added to the confusion, stating that "the Son of God became the Son of Man." This was a completely new concept, that instead of Jesus being the incarnation of the Father, He was only the incarnation of an eternal Son. This was never before taught in the first 150 years of the early church. None of the Apostles ever made a statement of that kind. Thomas called Him, "My Lord, and my God!" For a Jew, that meant that Thomas believed He was the Father in the flesh. The suggestion was that Jesus was an eternal son - an impossible concept. Think about it. How can anyone be an eternal son? Sonship, by definition, requires a beginning. Jesus became a son when He was born of Mary. Before the son was born of a virgin, only the Father existed. Here are some source quotes. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge : ‘Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61…Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula…is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas… the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed…’ page 435.” Even Justin Martyr was leery of the switch, as he clearly shows in his writings, as the first recorded ‘trinitarian’ baptism mode on historical record, in the year 140 AD, still carried the ‘NAME OF JESUS’, as a carryover from the original Acts 2:38 mode. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 8 “Justin Martys was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost”. THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA—Volume 1 pages 392, 393, 396. “the formula of Christian baptism, in the mode which prevailed, is given in Matthew 28:19, ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian baptism until the time of Justin Martyr; and there, they are not repeated exactly, but in a slightly extended and explanatory form. In every account of the performance of the rite in Apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the Day of Pentecost “in the Name of Jesus” (Acts 2:38), and the same formula was used at the baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him (Acts 10:48). Indeed it would appear to have been the usual one, from St Paul’s question to the Corinthians: “Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?” (I Corinthians 1:13). The Samaritans were baptized “into the name

of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16); and the same formula was used in the case of the disciples at Ephesus. (Acts 19:1-5)....Others think that the full formula was always used and that narratives in the book of Acts and in the Pauline Epistles are merely brief summaries of what took place; an idea rather difficult to believe in the absence of any single reference to the longer formula The evidence to show that the formula given by St Matthew became the established usage is overwhelming; but it is more than likely that the use of the shorter formula did not altogether die out, or, if it did, that it was revived. The historian Socrates informs us that some of the more extreme Arians “corrected” baptism by using the Name of Christ only in the formula. “The practice of using the shorter formula existed in the 5th. and 6th. Centuries, at all events in the East” Page 396. “No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts of the Epistles of the Apostles. The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the Day of Pentecost are administered “in the Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16), “into Christ” (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27). This difficulty was considered by the Fathers.” HISTORY OF CHRISTANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE—A.C. McGiffert, Scribners, 1901, page 61. …”of the trinitarian formula, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which later became universal in the Church, we have no trace in the New Testament, except in the single passage, (Matthew 28:19). It is difficult to suppose that it was employed in the early days with which we are here concerned; for it involves a conception of the nature of the rite which was entirely foreign to the thought of the primitive Christians, and indeed no less foreign to the thought of. When and how the formula arose, we do not know.” HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION—Vol 2, pages 377, 378, 389. “The Christian baptism was administered using the name of Jesus. The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history, Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr, when the trinity formula was used. Volume 2, page 377, commenting on Acts 2:38, “Name was an ancient synonym for person. Payment was always made in the name of some person, referring to ownership, therefore, one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property, “Ye are Christ’s I Corinthians 3:23. So as sources say, there was a obvious change by Justin. And it was not until he did this that the change became accepted, and later adopted as teaching. ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA—1910, 11th Edition, Volume 3, pages 365-366 Page 361 “The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together. The teachings of the Apostles indeed prescribes baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord—the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century, baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Garthage, declared it to be valid. From Pope Zachariah (ep.x) we learn that the Celtic missionaries in Baptizing omitted one or more persons of the trinity, and this was one of the reasons why the church of Rome anathematized them; Pope Nicholas, however (858867), allowed baptism to be valid (Tantum in nimineChristi), as in Acts. Ursinus, an African Monk A.D. 1284), also asserted that baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid. The formula of Rome is; “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and Son, and holy Spirit” Page 366 No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts or the Epistles of the Apostles. The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the day of Pentecost were administered “in the Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16) “into Christ” (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). This

difficulty was considered by the Fathers. History is replete with the statements that the vast majority of the proverbial Christians in the first 3 centuries AD were Acts 2:38-Jesus Name adherents. Their numbers were so large that the proverbial ‘popes’ of the day admitted that baptism in Jesus name was valid (Stephen of the 300’s and Zachery of the 700’s. So, we have truth (Jesus name only in the book of Acts and the trinity was adopted by a apostate church in 325 AD, following the lead of a man's change of the word of God.)and the trinity. I choose to serve the Lord and refuse the "tradition that makes the word of God to none effect". God bless us all in his mighty name of Jesus!

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful