Baptism in Jesus’ name, Trinitarian style.

[1689Dave]

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.

 

[Albion]

To readers who are interested in this topic:

all of the Original Post's claims here were made, discussed, and refuted this week in the more recent posts of the thread entitled "Gifts of the Holy Ghost" on the "Bible Study" forum.

Before starting here "from scratch," but with the same arguments and information that already have been posted and evaluated, you might want to consider joining that discussion. But if not, please at least take a look.

 

[1689Dave]

To readers who are interested in this topic:

all of the Original Post's claims here were made, discussed, and refuted this week in the more recent posts of the thread entitled "Gifts of the Holy Ghost" on the "Bible Study" forum.

Before starting here "from scratch," but with the same arguments and information that already have been posted and evaluated, you might want to consider joining that discussion. But if not, please at least take a look.

Here's the Catholic Encylopedia on it.
Baptism 263 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.

This is why Christendom ignores Jesus and the Apostles and uses the Pope's manner of baptism instead.

 

[Albion]

I'm coming to believe that you just don't understand what the words are saying.

The passage you quoted here certainly does not affirm the claim you twice made about a Pope supposedly ordering a change from one form of the baptismal formula to another,

 

[1689Dave]

I'm coming to believe that you just don't understand what the words are saying.

The passage you quoted here certainly does not affirm the claim you made about a Pope supposedly ordering a change from one form of the baptismal formula to another,

If you read closely Jesus and the apostles did not do what the Pope told you to do. Who do you follow in the matter? I follow Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[Lamb]

We have ONE God...so what's the problem with baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? What happens when baptizing in the name of our triune God is not different from baptizing in Jesus' name since we believe in one God.

BUT when people insist on only baptizing in the name of Jesus, then they might not be proclaiming the full truth of Jesus as God.

 

[1689Dave]

We have ONE God...so what's the problem with baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? What happens when baptizing in the name of our triune God is not different from baptizing in Jesus' name since we believe in one God.

BUT when people insist on only baptizing in the name of Jesus, then they might not be proclaiming the full truth of Jesus as God.

It undercuts Apostolic authority, not to mention Jesus. I for one believe along with the Reformers that the Papacy is Antichrist (in the place of Christ) and this fact speaks volumes.

 

[atpollard]

Personally, I advocate restricting our condemnation and criticism of the Pope to things that he really did wrong. Baptizing according to one Biblical verse over another does not seem like something to condemn the Pope for. (Especially since he was not “the man” in the 2nd Century … that power came later).

 

[Lamb]

The Didache might have been written in 70AD by the apostles, and the baptism formula in there is trinitarian.

 

[1689Dave]

The Didache might have been written in 70AD by the apostles, and the baptism formula in there is trinitarian.

If you go by scripture, the Papacy undermined Apostolic authority and changed Jesus' revelation of the name of the Trinity. Paul said, whatever you do, do in the name of Jesus Christ. And that all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily. This shows the extent of the Antichrist's presence over Christendom.

 

[Albion]

Personally, I advocate restricting our condemnation and criticism of the Pope to things that he really did wrong. Baptizing according to one Biblical verse over another does not seem like something to condemn the Pope for. (Especially since he was not “the man” in the 2nd Century … that power came later).

In other words, there's a lot that's wrong with the claims that were posted earlier and which deal in one way or another with that subject.

For instance:

1) As you noted here, there wasn't anyone recognized as a Pope figure at the time being referred to.

2) The bishop of Rome who was alleged to have ordered a change from the shorter baptismal formula to the one that's almost universally used now, didn't actually order such a change.

3) The idea that the Protestants who use the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" wording as the Catholic Church also does are doing that because they've knuckled under to a demand of the Pope is a silly one, considering that some of those denominations still maintain that the Pope is the Antichrist!

4) And it makes no sense at all to favor the shorter form and reject the longer one by arguing that the shorter formula is "scripture" and is what the "Apostles" favored. Not when the longer one, with the Trinitarian wording, is recorded for us in the Gospel of Matthew and is an order that was given straight from the lips of Christ himself to those Apostles!

 

[1689Dave]

In other words, there's a lot that's wrong with the claims that were posted earlier and which deal in one way or another with that subject.

For instance:

1) As you noted here, there wasn't anyone recognized as a Pope figure at the time being referred to.

2) The bishop of Rome who was alleged to have ordered a change from the shorter baptismal formula to the one that's almost universally used now, didn't actually order such a change.

3) The idea that the Protestants who use the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" wording as the Catholic Church also does are doing that because they've knuckled under to a demand of the Pope is a silly one, considering that some of those denominations still maintain that the Pope is the Antichrist!

4) And it makes no sense at all to favor the shorter form and reject the longer one by arguing that the shorter formula is "scripture" and is what the "Apostles" favored. Not when the longer one, with the Trinitarian wording, is recorded for us in the Gospel of Matthew and is an order that was given straight from the lips of Christ himself to those Apostles!

But Jesus and the Apostles showed us how to Baptise, not the Pope. Who do you follow in this matter? I prefer to follow Jesus in this matter and have.

 

[Lamb]

But Jesus and the Apostles showed us how to Baptise, not the Pope. Who do you follow in this matter? I prefer to follow Jesus in this matter and have.

Is Jesus against the Trinitarian formula?

 

[1689Dave]

Is Jesus against the Trinitarian formula?

Jesus Christ is YHWH in the NT. He is revealing the Trinity in His name.

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Jude 5 (ESV)

“and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4)


“Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.” 1 Corinthians 10:9 (KJV 1900)

Why did the early church know Jesus is YHWH? Because the LXX translated YHWH as Lord. And since this was the bible of Jesus and the disciples, they knew Jesus is YHWH when he became known as Lord Jesus Christ. Did you know the Trinity is also in the OT?

“Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I: And now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” (Isaiah 48:16) (KJV 1900)

Modern translation; “Approach Me and listen to this. From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time anything existed, I was there.” And now the Lord GOD has sent me and His Spirit.” (Isaiah 48:16) (HCSB)

 

[Albion]

While we're thinking of all these things, here's another. This forum is supposedly closed to posters who do not adhere to the Nicene Creed--

Christian Theology​

Post thread
Forum for Christians (who agree with the Statement of Faith as defined by the Nicene Creed) to discuss Theology with other Christians


Unitarianism is not affirmed by the Nicene Creed. In fact, rejecting that POV was the primary reason for calling the councils that wrote the Creed which asserted the Trinitarian belief to the exclusion of all the various ways that heretics had argued against the doctrine of the Trinity by confusing the persons of God, combining some of them, making one or two of them lesser in divinity than another, saying that the names used (Father, Son, HG) all refer to the same person, or etc.

 

[1689Dave]

While we're thinking of all these things, here's another. This forum is supposedly closed to posters who do not adhere to the Nicene Creed--

Christian Theology​

Post thread
Forum for Christians (who agree with the Statement of Faith as defined by the Nicene Creed) to discuss Theology with other Christians


Unitarianism is not affirmed by the Nicene Creed. In fact, rejecting that POV was the primary reason for calling the councils that wrote the Creed which asserted the Trinitarian belief to the exclusion of all the various ways that heretics had argued against the doctrine of the Trinity by confusing the persons of God, combining some of them, making one or two of them lesser in divinity than another, saying that the names used (Father, Son, HG) all refer to the same person, or etc.

I adhere to it. I'm a Trinitarian. So what's the beef?

The Nicene Creed​

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And we believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

It is a sin if you falsely accuse me. Also the "Catholic Church" is NOT the Roman Catholic Church. It is the BODY of Christ universal, non-denominational.

 

[Albion]

I'm a trinitarian but understand Jesus Christ is the NT name of the triune YHWH. Granville Sharp's rule translates other passages this way, that Jesus is YHWH (the trinity) in the flesh.

QFT

 

[1689Dave]

QFT

Excuse me, but I do not understand what you are saying. I do appreciate your interest in this thread and your keeping it alive,

 

[Joelightening]

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.

It is very important to baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Do you know of any groups who hold to the trinitarian doctrine and baptize in Jesus name?

 

[Josiah]

We have ONE God...so what's the problem with baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? What happens when baptizing in the name of our triune God is not different from baptizing in Jesus' name since we believe in one God.

BUT when people insist on only baptizing in the name of Jesus, then they might not be proclaiming the full truth of Jesus as God.

I agree....

I think the premise of the opening poster entirely, wholly rests on some verses stating "ONLY" when none of them do. There is no verse that says, "Baptize only in the name of Jesus." Baptizing in the name of Jesus is not conflicting with baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


.