Transcription
Recently, a church shared a video online of their pastor going to the pull pit with a document in which he claims that the Catholic Church admits that they changed the baptismal formula at the Council of Nika. The documentation sounds definitive. It seems devastating to Christian tradition, but the video is no longer being shared by this church online. And you have to wonder why. And it's because there's questions about whether or not the document is even real.
"You got killed if you got baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Because it's not the way the Catholics say you need to be baptized. So I'm going to read to you today the translation of what it is that they did. Okay? So it says that from AD 3:25 that's the council of Nya the baptismal formula was changed to the trinitarian expression from the original form of into the name of Jesus. Acts 2:38 and the latter was used only by those who desired their identity to be with the original apostolic practice. Therefore, we sold indulgence for, this is a quote, the primitive apostolic mode of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that did not include the triune baptismal formula."
"THAT'S NOT ME. THAT'S THE CATHOLIC CHURCH that said that."
"They say be careful what you post on social media because it never really goes away. And so while Calgary has taken it down off of their accounts, I screen recorded it because whenever I first saw this video, I saw there was red flags all over this. And so let's just talk about what some of those red flags were. Number one, when Doug Walker's in this pull pit holding up this old book and opening it up and reading from it, he doesn't tell you what the name of the book is, at least in this clip. So I got very curious and I wanted to know what the source was. So I was listening to it in the background as I was on Google typing in verbatim the quotation that he is giving and whenever I hit search nothing came up on Google completely empty and so I needed to know more so I went to the YouTube page for the church and I watched the live video from this full context of the sermon and I didn't record that but in it the pastor talks about how it is a book that was a Catholic defense over the selling of indulgences and that the the context is and you notice in that video there was some mention of indulgences. He's saying that there were people that wanted to be baptized in Jesus' name but because it was seen as an inappropriate practice they they had to have special indulgences or this family did in order to be baptized and I guess be in full fellowship with uh the church still which isn't how the practice of indulgences works. uh you would never sell an indulgence to someone wanting to be baptized, even if it's in an alternate formula. That would just not ever happen. So, historically, it's just not true because indulgences just it just doesn't work that way within the Catholic tradition. And so, another red flag. And so, anyway, he's talking about it being the sale of indulgences. It was written in 1603, but we don't get an explicit, at least I didn't see it on YouTube, an explicit mention of what the actual name of the book is, nor who wrote the book. And so people were on social media asking because they wanted to know where is this from? And you could tell a lot of them were one as Pentecostals because they were commenting things like, "Hey man, you know, where do I find more?" And so I started commenting saying, "Hey, there there's something suspicious about this because you don't name the book. you don't name an author and it just seems to be kind of this ambiguous quote. Not to mention the fact that it seems to be ahistorical because the council of Nika in 3:25 was not a council discussing what the right baptismal formula is. And so luckily um best I can recall how this all went down. Eventually, the church commented back to me, I think on Instagram whenever I was asking for some sources, said, "Go read the caption." And so, the church changed the caption of the video to include the name of this book.
So, this is what Calgary posted, and I'm not going to attempt to read the Latin. I'll just translate it for you. It says, "The compilation of the defense of the Catholic Church's doctrine of indulgences." It's written in 1603. And you can see below the quotation that they made. So I take the name of the book and I post it into Google and I get no results. In fact, I get no results until eventually Google picks up on the church that originally shared it. And so then it becomes that the only evidence for this online is from Truth Chapel at Calgary. Today I asked Grock about this title and Grock ended up telling me basically what I just said that the only evidence circulates from Truth Chapel. So I had to Facebook and ask Truth Church. Uh I just realized it's Truth Church, not Truth Chapel. My mistake, guys. But u I had to ask why is it when you look this up that it just comes back to your church page? And so I post what seems to be an obvious resolution. just post the book and the page. Now, this was not just a me thing, but even other oneness Pentecostals began to ask. And I think Jason Weatherly absolutely hits the nail on the head and he has written books on the Jesus name baptism subject. He clearly has an interest in this information and he actually agrees with Doug Walker's ultimate conclusion, but he points out that this is quite the claim and it needs to have clear evidence because it is such a wild claim. And so I I'm really thankful for Jason for asking the church to show the evidence. But Truth Church doesn't show the evidence. Doesn't post a picture of the book. doesn't post a picture of the page. It actually just takes the video down off of Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. Completely scrubs it.
And so, why did they do that? Um, my opinion is because they don't have the documentation to begin with. Because we're not just being asked to believe this quote. That's that's one thing. We're being asked to believe a lot of things that had to be true. The pastor would have had to have found this book completely on his own. As I pointed out, when you search for this title online, there's nothing. When you try to look up the quotation itself, there's nothing. How does this pastor find this book? A complete needle in the haystack. There's no evidence of it existing. It has there's no evidence of this quote existing. So, he's looking for rare books and happens to find this book. And it just so happens this book that he finds has no footprint anywhere. Nothing in Catholic archives, nothing. It's completely unheard of. He finds this ultra rare book and a book that's this rare, he's able to afford it, which again, a super rare book would have a hefty price tag. He gets this book and he's somehow reading it because a book written in 1603, a Catholic book, would have been written in Latin. So maybe Doug Walker reads and is fluent in Latin. Hopefully he is. But if he isn't, then that creates even more problems because he has to have enough spare time that he is using something to translate page by page. because when you look at the original video when he's reading, he's reading from about the halfway point of this book. So, he has had to have spent a large amount of time getting this information and then he just so happens to find a page that just so happens to mirror the rhetoric that is preached in one Pentecostal churches about the Catholic Church changing the formula of baptism. He literally hits the oneness Pentecostal power ball if all this is true because it is so unlikely that this exists.
So the video comes down and everybody moves on with their lives. Well, everybody except for Doug Walker because apparently he's got a YouTube page in which he has like a podcast and he does a podcast that just came out like two days ago entitled Primitive Baptism. And um so whenever this gets posted, I've just had to know, does he talk about this video? Well, he does. And I've taken some shots because I found in a book that is a compilation of defenses of the purgatory. Somebody had edited and written, and I'm doing the due diligence. We're working on substantiating and and getting everything in order. And I'm going to put it in a book that I'm writing. I have questions. Who is the way that's working through this? And notice he does say that he's the one who found this. And and [snorts] I want to know who who is helping him work through this material. How is it that this is going on? And I've really got a huge question. Why is it that in the original video and on the post of the original video it was a defense of the sale of indulgences and now the book is somehow about purgatory. So which is it? Is it about purgatory or is it about the sale of indulgences? Maybe a minor point. Maybe he just slipped up. But when you add up all these things that are happening, it all just leaves you scratching your head and makes you wonder what was the book that you took to the pull pit and opened and pretended to read from. [clears throat] Why the theatrics? Totally unforced error. But if you've got the book, you're in your office right now. Why not put the book in the video and show the book instead of working through it, verifying it? You wouldn't have to do that if you just had it. So, what was the book that went to the pullpit that was read from that no one has any evidence of? That's the controversy. The controversy and the reason why this pastor is getting these rocks thrown at him and he's under this pressure. It isn't because of the quote. It isn't because of all these other things. Well, I mean, it is about the quote, but not because of the content of the quote. The fact that the quote doesn't exist anywhere, but yet you've got this book, and you won't just show the evidence. You won't just show the work. The controversy is, is he does he actually have what he's claiming that he has? That's the issue.
But he doesn't think so because he goes on to tell you what the controversy actually is. And it's not about the quote that he read from the book. It's about a different quote that was on the post but not actually in the viral video. But they they said that there was a change in the mode of baptism and that it was wrong to baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus and that they would have punished you for that and and that they had to have special indulgences that allowed people or forgave people for this. Now, I didn't write this. I didn't say this, but an editor compiled his comments and he made the statement um that that uh Thomas Aquinus, he referenced him. He didn't quote Thomas Aquinus. Okay? And so, I had posted in I personally didn't do it. I don't post anything but um our media team had posted the citations and the um the quote the quotes and the reference to Thomas Aquinus got a lot of push back. Okay. So I'm going to walk through. So the controversy he thinks isn't about him taking a book to the pull pit and opening it up and reading a spurious quote. That's not the controversy. The controversy is what his social media team posted in as the caption of the video that references Thomas Aquinus. Thomas Aquinus is not mentioned in the viral video. He did mention it in the YouTube video. I I do remember that. I don't have the screen record of that, but Thomas Aquinus only gets brought up in the com in the the caption. And yet this is the thing that he thinks that he took all this heat for because of what his social media team posted about Thomas Aquinus. So what a miss. What a complete miss. What a deflection. But you know what? I'll I'll bite. I will bite. I'm here for it. Let's talk about Thomas Aquinus.
So what was it that was said about Thomas Aquinus? If you look down towards the bottom of the caption, it says, "The editor goes on to quote Catholic authorities," the apostles baptized in the name of Christ. Yet afterwards, the church changed the formula. Then there's the citation from Suma Theologica, Thomas Aquinus. But look at that quote. Look at all of the ellipses. That's not a quote. That is a peace meal all over the place. And so the question has to be is anything like this even in Suma Theologica? I made the statement while I was preaching to great controversy. They changed the formula. Okay, here's how and where I got that. It's in quotation in objection three of article six of question 66 of part three of suma theologica Thomas Aquinas. Therefore he said it was in objection three where in objection three does it say that the apostles baptized in Jesus name but later the church changed the formula. It doesn't say that. What it says is that Pope Nicholas is referencing to uh Ambrose and talks about how therefore baptism can be celebrated in the name of Christ. There's nothing about a change of the formula. It's just an mention that people were baptized in the name of Christ. And even St. Ambrose agreed with this. My my my point here is is that the the editor, compiler, author that I was quoting from the medieval era, he made mention that they changed the way you were supposed to be baptized and invalidated the primitive apostolic mode of baptism. and he referenced Thomas Aquinus and this this actual article and I got an immense amount of push back from that folks. I am not trying to do something of slight of hand. I'm I if I if I make mistakes in some Latin interpretation or if if the technology that is available to me to help me translate transliterate has somehow led me down that I'm I'm willing to say uh that that I am not a linguist.
I am >> so that's as close to an admission of guilt as we kind of get through this. But I want to ask the question, who's this editor that you're talking about that he's the one who said they changed it? Because whoever this editor was, he's misquing these sources, too. Because if it's someone else, I just showed you that in objection three of Suma Theologica question number 66, the quote that your media team posted is not there. So where is that spurious quote from that's got all the ellipses at? because it's not in Thomas. So, I could forgive there at the end he's talking about, hey, you know, I don't want to mislead people and I don't want to do anything underhanded. I get it. You maybe you don't want to do that. I hope you don't want to do that. And that would be believable if you hadn't walked to the pull pit with an old book and literally held it up and then acted as though you read from it. That again, unforced error. No one made you do that. And that is what can't be excused by, well, hey, you know what? If uh Chat GDP led me wrong, chat didn't tell you to take that book to a pull pit. What was that book? Who is this editor? Where is he getting these quotes from? What are the actual quotes that are on the page? That's what we're not getting. We're getting misdirects, but we're not getting anything that actually addresses what happened.
>> And it's so hilarious to me that the minute I I put out what a writer or an editor um wrote and then referenced this and and granted, mistakes are made. I I get it. It it could have appeared that it was a um that it was a a direct quote. And for that I apologize. But >> oh, it's not that it may appear like it was a quote. It was a quote. That's what quotation marks mean when it says the apostles baptized in the name of Christ yet the church a afterwards the church changed the formula. It's not an appearance of a quote. It is presented as though it is verbatim out of Suma theologica. And there you are above it with a book open pretending to read this reference from this book. it just saying well it could have been interpreted this way and I apologize that so go what happened goes so far beyond that and here are some more quotes that were given but are these not supposed to be interpreted as quotes either because these that say that Jesus day baptism was certainly valid at the time of the apostles uh maybe those aren't real too I haven't even bothered to look those up maybe someone will look these up for me and we'll see whether or not those quotes are true or But if those quotes are real, why isn't the one that you're making the big fuss about, why isn't that one real? Because that one's not in Suma Theologica. And again, let's not miss the point here. Why are we here? We are here not because of the controversy over the Thomas Aquinus Post. Yeah, there was someone who commented to Doug Walker asking or pointing out, hey, this isn't Insuma Theologica. Somebody made a big deal about it. But what generated the issue from both oneness and trinitarians was the video and what was said in the video that's a spurious quote from a book that does not exist that somehow that non that fictional book that book that doesn't exist then has a false quote from Thomas Aquinus in Suma Theologica. It's hilarious to me that the amount of scrutiny that I am under and the amount of specificity in which one must deliver and yet their Catholic writers can write ad nauseium the things that are interpolations that are spuriously shoehorned into the text and nobody challenges them and says, "Mike, drop the mic. Stop the show. Get off the merrygoround." These guys [clears throat] are adding to the word of God. So I I answer back, please answer reply objection one from Thomas Aquinus. The irony is so thick that you would point out that other people are shoehorning in something that isn't there. That's quite ironic. But he brings up a point at the end and we'll get to some substance here. So, it's not just this dog pile on him cuz he brings something up at the end that he wants someone to answer to. But, well, before we get there, dude, quit acting like a victim. Quit acting like a victim. Quit playing what aboutism. Quit playing, well, if you're going to get on my case, why don't you get on their case because of all this other Well, the reason why we're not on their case right now is because they didn't make this stuff up. They may have said things that you disagree with or maybe even I disagree with. But what they didn't do is say someone said something that they never said. That's the reason why you're getting all this pressure is because you said something that doesn't exist. And you didn't just say it. You took a prop to the pull pit and presented it as though it was real. But you asked a question at the end about responding to some of the things that Thomas Aquinus said and I will do that.
>> Okay. So then Thomas Aquinas writes, "Whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the trinity destroys the integrity of the baptism." Okay, this is okay. End of end of quotes. Now this is my personal note. This is me deducting from this what the meaning is. They invalidated biblical baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. So like I said, I am going to respond to the things that Thomas Aquinus says and give an explanation for it. But before I do it, I just had to point out right here. You said that these things mean to you that they changed the baptismal formula. Well, if all of this information just lives gives to your conclusion that they changed the baptismal formula, what was this all about?
"THAT'S NOT ME. THAT'S THE CATHOLIC CHURCH that said that."
So Doug Walker took up issue with Thomas Aquinus saying that without the full mention of the Trinity, baptism is made uh invalid. And that's at the end of his first paragraph of where he answers the question about baptism. But what I want to point out is Aquinus is not affirming that the formula changed. What he points out at the very beginning that the efficacy of the sacrament is based on the power of Christ's institution of the sacrament. So what Thomas is arguing for is not like what truth church posted that the formula changed. What Thomas is saying is that from the very beginning, the reason why any formula that does not have the full trinitarian form is invalid, at least for us today, is because of Christ's institution in Matthew 28:19, that baptism is to be done in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost. So he is not saying that this changed. He is saying that that was the original. Thomas then goes on to give some responses some to some anticipatory uh objections and the the things that he's he's responding to is at the beginning well what if people say well what about in the book of acts where baptism is in Jesus name and then he responds to a quote from Ambrose where he talks about how the primitive church baptized in Jesus' name and it's therefore something to be celebrated and then where Pope Nicholas The first actually affirms what Ambrose is saying. And here you can read through if you want to pause the screen. Thomas is saying that there was something special that happened during the time of the apostles which is why for a particular purpose baptism in the name of Jesus alone was valid because it in some way was u implicitly trinitarian. So Ambrose admits that early on in the primitive church they were baptizing in Jesus' name. The Pope Nicholas I also says that this happens and they both say that it's okay for people to be baptized in the name of Christ.
Now but wait a minute, what did you say?
"You got killed if you got baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because it's not the way the Catholics say you need to be baptized. So I'm going to read to you today the translation of what it is that they did. Okay. So it says that from AD 3:25 that's the council of Nya the baptismal formula was changed to the trinitarian expression from the"
Wait wait wait wait wait wait. You just said your source claims that the baptismal formula was changed in 3:25, but Ambrose wasn't born until 339, died in 395, somewhere in that area. Pope Nicholas I is the Pope in the 800s, and they're both saying a defense of Jesusonly baptism, that it's a valid Christian baptism. Why would they say this if their church changed the formula in 3:25? We could go further into the medieval period because Martin Luther in Babylonian captivity of the church is asked about people that are asking about being baptized in the name of the Lord alone. And Martin Luther says, "Why would that be wrong?" This is a summary of what he says. Why would that be wrong when that's how the apostles baptized people? The thing is is that this controversy, this debate has been going on for a long time. And there have been people on all sides of this. There have been people that have said Matthew 28:19 is the only valid baptismal formula. And that's what Thomas is getting to. Now, he thinks there are some exceptions that happened, but there are people out there that say Matthew 28:19 and that's it. And there are people that go to the book of Acts and they say, "Hey, it's the book of Acts and it's the book of Acts alone." And that's how baptism was done then. That's how it has to be now. And that's what one Pentecostals believe. That's what Doug Walker believes. But there are people that don't buy into this part of the debate like me who believes that in Acts they were baptizing in the name of Jesus. Now there are people that are on my side. They're Matthew 28:19 essentialists I guess you would call them and they argue well in Acts there's no direct quotes. In Acts, it just means that they're doing it in the authority of even Thomas Aquinas. Even with Thomas, he believes that the way they were baptizing was in the name of Jesus because he says it in his writings. He he just says it's something that was exceptional in the book of Acts. St. Ambrose believed that they were being baptized in the name of Jesus. Pope Nicholas the 1 believed they were being baptized in the name of Jesus. Martin Luther believes they were being baptized in the name of Jesus. I believe they were being baptized in the name of Jesus in these Acts accounts. But what we don't believe is therefore Acts 238 essentialists so-called in one of Pentecostalism that if you accidentally burp and don't say the name Jesus, your baptism is invalid. because we acknowledge that Matthew 28:19 is in the Bible and so is the book of Acts in the Bible and it's not wrong to quote scripture and at your baptism you can quote Matthew 28:19 or you can quote something in Acts and it's scriptural because the truth is baptism isn't invalidated because of the faith of the baptizer. It's about the faith of the baptized. That's what really matters. If your preacher doesn't believe in the Trinity and he baptizes some other way, you're not damned because of your pastor's bad theology. And likewise, the opposite. It It is you. If you're saved by faith, if you're saved by faith, it's not the preacher's faith. It's your faith. It's your faith in your savior. That's what matters. And so like that's the position that I think that is the most coherent position because again you have to acknowledge that both of these things can be true. And I don't I'm not going to force Acts to say something that it doesn't seem to say. But I'm also not going to force Matthew 28:19 to say something it doesn't seem to say because Matthew 28:19 is not teaching that Jesus is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. That is not what is in that text. The Gospel of Matthew does not present Jesus in that way. The epistles do not present Jesus in that way. If your one is Pentecostal, it has to because your whole theological system is built on a particular understanding of Jesus name baptism. Which is why you have to work so hard to defend it that some people will go so far as to mislead people. But the thing is with this pastor, he doesn't even seem to believe Matthew 28:19 is even authentic.
"That yes, you're supposed to baptize in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which Jesus never said that, even if Matthew 28:19 is authentic and not a spurious um addition."
Why is it even necessary to even dispute the possibility of Matthew 28:19? Why what's the point of that? What point does it serve? Because if your point is just to score points against the other side, it's totally unnecessary. I'm not here trying to debunk Jesus name baptism. I believe Jesus name baptism is efficacious. I agree with Martin Luther that in whatever way baptism is administered, it truly saves. I agree with that. If you're baptized and they quote Matthew 28:19, it's valid. If they quote some verse out of Acts, it is valid. I'm not saying this to just try to score points. I'm not making this video just to score points. What I'm making this video about is because why can't we just be honest about what the text says? And when we're wrong, why double down? Why not repent? Why does this matter to me? It's because it should matter to everybody. Truth and integrity in pull pits. That should matter to everyone. And I just honestly don't see that that's what happened here. At best, this pastor used some chat AI and they gave them a false quote. But that doesn't answer all the questions of why the doubling down where what was the book and the this video to respond to it. It doesn't address the core issue of what happened on that Sunday in that church with that book. What was that quote? Where does it come from? And does the truth matter to Truth Church and to this pastor? cuz it should. Again, the name of the church is truth church. The truth should matter. What happened? And will there be repentance? Maybe the evidence comes out. Maybe I've just totally missed it. He has this one in a kind unique book. He hit the apostolic power ball and found this book. But even then, it doesn't address the real issue about what Jesus name baptism is. It doesn't shut out the debate. All it is is just a point. And whoever wrote it didn't know what they're talking about either. Let's just be honest about