Baptism in what name(s)?

[tdidymas]

The term "Triune formula" in classical Reformation Theology is that Baptism is done in the "name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" per Jesus' command in Mt. 28.

You stated that Baptism is a "testimonial." Chapter and verse please.

I'm using the logic that our actions are a testimonial, as in 1 Cor. 11:26 "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." - when we take communion, we are proclaiming Jesus, that is, it's a testimonial. The same with baptism, the other sacrament (for lack of better terminology). When John the Baptist saw the Pharisees coming to the river, he said "who told you to flee from the wrath to come?" Therefore, it was assumed in that context that baptism was a declaration of repentance (a testimonial).

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The same with baptism, the other sacrament (for lack of better terminology). When John the Baptist saw the Pharisees coming to the river, he said "who told you to flee from the wrath to come?" Therefore, it was assumed in that context that baptism was a declaration of repentance (a testimonial).

Yes. The Lord's Supper clearly states it is a public proclamation of one's belief in the crucified and risen Lord. It is a public proclamation because the Christian is active in the Sacrament. "Take eat." "Take drink." In fact, receiving the Lord's Supper is the most public action we do during the Divine Service. And even through we may not feel or believe that receiving Holy Communion is our testimony of our hope before the world, Scripture de facto declares it as such.

As a Lutheran, our historic liturgy allows for the congregation to publically testify to their beliefs:

• In unity of our sinful condition and the need of forgiveness of sin--the recitation of the general confession of sins.
• In the unity of belief---the recitation of creed.
• In unity of Christian living---the recitation of the Lord's prayer.

Yet, these liturgical proclamations pale before our grand proclamation---the Lord's Supper.

Your point about John the Baptist and the preaching of repentance is very interesting. The question is raised: Is baptism with repentance a public testimony of our faith the same way as the Lord's Supper?

This question is difficult. Certainly, repentance detached from baptism is not a sacrament and also is not a public testimony of ones faith as no scriptural verse to my knowledge affirms this. So what about original question: Is baptism with repentance a public testimony of our faith the same way as the Lord's Supper?

And I hope you will be patient and give me more than enough rope to hang myself.

In a word, no. Why? Scripture states no where, baptism with or without repentance is a public proclamation of one's faith. I will grant you repentance can be a pointer to a public testimony in the same way the recitation of the creed can in a worship service, but it far from being a "stand alone" testimony such as the Lord's Supper.

For if, baptism and repentance is a public testimony we would expect of see it commented in Scripture as such. We would expect those who witnessed baptisms in the NT to comment on the testimonies of the newly baptized, or we would expect the testimonies of those baptized to be recorded in the NT.

Baptism is never spoken of as an event for the eyes of the audience. In most cases, people are baptized as soon as possible, often without audiences as in the Samaritans in Acts 8:12-13, Ethiopian eunuch 8:34-39, Saul of Tarsus 9:17-18, 22:12-16, Cornelius and family 10:14, 44-48, Lydia and family 16:13-15, the Philippian jailer and family 16:30-34, and Crispus and family 18:7-8.

 

[tdidymas]

Yes. The Lord's Supper clearly states it is a public proclamation of one's belief in the crucified and risen Lord. It is a public proclamation because the Christian is active in the Sacrament. "Take eat." "Take drink." In fact, receiving the Lord's Supper is the most public action we do during the Divine Service. And even through we may not feel or believe that receiving Holy Communion is our testimony of our hope before the world, Scripture de facto declares it as such.

As a Lutheran, our historic liturgy allows for the congregation to publically testify to their beliefs:

• In unity of our sinful condition and the need of forgiveness of sin--the recitation of the general confession of sins.
• In the unity of belief---the recitation of creed.
• In unity of Christian living---the recitation of the Lord's prayer.

Yet, these liturgical proclamations pale before our grand proclamation---the Lord's Supper.

Your point about John the Baptist and the preaching of repentance is very interesting. The question is raised: Is baptism with repentance a public testimony of our faith the same way as the Lord's Supper?

This question is difficult. Certainly, repentance detached from baptism is not a sacrament and also is not a public testimony of ones faith as no scriptural verse to my knowledge affirms this. So what about original question: Is baptism with repentance a public testimony of our faith the same way as the Lord's Supper?

And I hope you will be patient and give me more than enough rope to hang myself.

In a word, no. Why? Scripture states no where, baptism with or without repentance is a public proclamation of one's faith. I will grant you repentance can be a pointer to a public testimony in the same way the recitation of the creed can in a worship service, but it far from being a "stand alone" testimony such as the Lord's Supper.

For if, baptism and repentance is a public testimony we would expect of see it commented in Scripture as such. We would expect those who witnessed baptisms in the NT to comment on the testimonies of the newly baptized, or we would expect the testimonies of those baptized to be recorded in the NT.

Baptism is never spoken of as an event for the eyes of the audience. In most cases, people are baptized as soon as possible, often without audiences as in the Samaritans in Acts 8:12-13, Ethiopian eunuch 8:34-39, Saul of Tarsus 9:17-18, 22:12-16, Cornelius and family 10:14, 44-48, Lydia and family 16:13-15, the Philippian jailer and family 16:30-34, and Crispus and family 18:7-8.

It may be that baptism is more than mere testimony, I'll grant you that. However, I don't yield to the idea of baptismal regeneration, as I understand is the official doctrine of the Lutheran Church, taught at the Missouri Synod. In 2 Pet. it says that it is "an appeal to God for a good conscience," which tells me that baptism is symbolic of a spiritual action in which God cleanses a person's conscience, assuming that person's repentance is sincere. Naturally, it is different than communion, since they are different rites. But the similarity is that the person doing the rite is appealing to God in addition to a public performance of faith. The sincerity of repentance in either is shown by subsequent deeds, since Jesus said "by their fruit you shall know them."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It may be that baptism is more than mere testimony, I'll grant you that. However, I don't yield to the idea of baptismal regeneration, as I understand is the official doctrine of the Lutheran Church, taught at the Missouri Synod. In 2 Pet. it says that it is "an appeal to God for a good conscience," which tells me that baptism is symbolic of a spiritual action in which God cleanses a person's conscience, assuming that person's repentance is sincere. Naturally, it is different than communion, since they are different rites. But the similarity is that the person doing the rite is appealing to God in addition to a public performance of faith. The sincerity of repentance in either is shown by subsequent deeds, since Jesus said "by their fruit you shall know them."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Boy, this went south real fast.

First a question about baptism as a testimony, then John the Baptist and repentance, now the equivalency of baptism and acts of sanctification. Strange.

 

[Dan Perez]

It is a synecdoche. The writer need not repeat every word at every line. The manner of Christian baptism has long since been resolved and proper baptism is in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is nothing further to say of it.

My question is , who was water Baptism , manifested to FIRST ?

If anyone believes in WATER BAPTISM , why does MARK 16:16 say that he that believeth shall be saved ?

Does this means that WATER BAPTISM , saves ?

In m1 Cor 10:2 they were BAPTIZED unto Moses , in the CLOUD and in the SEA .

And what does BAPTIZED unto the CLOUD and in the SEA , mean?

dan p

 

[Kylism]

"In the name of" is not a referring to a particular term, but rather referring to a submission to authority. To baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is to testify that the baptism is under the authority of the triune God which Jesus Himself revealed to us through the writings of the apostles.

In Acts, it says they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. He is the authority we are to submit to by obedience to His words. But keep in mind that they were largely baptizing Jews, and being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" was to publicly forsake the ideas of the Jewish leaders of the time, and to become a follower of Christ. That rite was a test of their faith (and a testimony of it), since it was risking persecution or death.

So then, in today's largely gentile churches, it really doesn't matter what words are spoken at the baptism rite, whether it be "in the name of Jesus" or "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," because we are being baptized into the Christian life by someone under the authority of the only true God. Baptism is a testimonial, not a formula.

I agree with you.

Gentiles in baptism might also used Lord Jesus as to assert the in charge part of your life part as Christ would of asserted Messiah to Jews.

Kylism

 

[Danthemailman]

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19 (BSB)

This formula is almost universally held amongst Christians as the correct method in which a new convert is to be baptized. For good reason, it's the Lord's own word as He was about to ascend into Heaven. But I wonder where the disconnect is with the Apostles.

be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38 (BSB)

they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16 (BSB)

So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:48 (BSB)

On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5 (BSB)

There are many scriptures in the book of Acts that mention baptism, but only these four mention baptism into the name of someone. In all four, we see a common theme.

"into the name of Jesus"

So if Jesus said, the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, why didn't the Apostles obey that? Or were they even disobeying at all?

So clearly, we wouldn't say the Apostles were being disobedient. So there must be more going on here than what meets the eye.

What is name of the Father? Well some would say Yahweh perhaps, or Jehovah is another popular rendering. But it's not Father, father is a position or title, it's who He is. I am a father to my children, but it's not my name.

What is the name of the Son? Well of course we know that is Jesus, or Yahshua. Son is not His name, it's his position in the Godhead, His title per se, it's who Jesus is.

What is the name of the Holy Spirit? Again, same principle applies, the Holy Spirit's name is not Holy Spirit. That's who the Holy Spirit is.

The thing to understand here is Matthew 28:19 says, "baptizing them in the NAME of" not "baptizing them in the NAMES of". A singular name, not plural for 3. So what is the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Of course, it's what the Apostles used when they baptized, it's Jesus. The only revealed name of the Godhead that we have, in scripture is Jesus. We know from scripture that Jesus is Himself the full manifestation of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9)

Now don't misunderstand me, and don't misquote me here. I'm not Oneness Pentecostal or anything of the sort. I fully believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three in one. But I wonder if churches have the baptismal formula wrong when they baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", especially when the men who walked with Jesus only baptized "in the name of Jesus."

Speaking of Oneness Pentecostals and baptism in Jesus' name, this article may shed some light on the subject for you.

Must baptism be "in Jesus' name"?

The proper way to baptize in Jesus' name is to say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

carm.org

 

[biblelesson]

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19 (BSB)

This formula is almost universally held amongst Christians as the correct method in which a new convert is to be baptized. For good reason, it's the Lord's own word as He was about to ascend into Heaven. But I wonder where the disconnect is with the Apostles.

be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38 (BSB)

they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16 (BSB)

So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:48 (BSB)

On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5 (BSB)

There are many scriptures in the book of Acts that mention baptism, but only these four mention baptism into the name of someone. In all four, we see a common theme.

"into the name of Jesus"

So if Jesus said, the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, why didn't the Apostles obey that? Or were they even disobeying at all?

So clearly, we wouldn't say the Apostles were being disobedient. So there must be more going on here than what meets the eye.

What is name of the Father? Well some would say Yahweh perhaps, or Jehovah is another popular rendering. But it's not Father, father is a position or title, it's who He is. I am a father to my children, but it's not my name.

What is the name of the Son? Well of course we know that is Jesus, or Yahshua. Son is not His name, it's his position in the Godhead, His title per se, it's who Jesus is.

What is the name of the Holy Spirit? Again, same principle applies, the Holy Spirit's name is not Holy Spirit. That's who the Holy Spirit is.

The thing to understand here is Matthew 28:19 says, "baptizing them in the NAME of" not "baptizing them in the NAMES of". A singular name, not plural for 3. So what is the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Of course, it's what the Apostles used when they baptized, it's Jesus. The only revealed name of the Godhead that we have, in scripture is Jesus. We know from scripture that Jesus is Himself the full manifestation of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9)

Now don't misunderstand me, and don't misquote me here. I'm not Oneness Pentecostal or anything of the sort. I fully believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three in one. But I wonder if churches have the baptismal formula wrong when they baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", especially when the men who walked with Jesus only baptized "in the name of Jesus."

I’m glad I ran across your post - it just appeared somehow. My post below is basically saying the same thing, yet I was accused of being anti-Trinitarianism and against the Nicene Creed and that I should not be posting on CF if I didn’t believe in the trinity. However, nowhere in my post did I say I didn’t believe in the trinity.
This is what I posted. Should I be rebaptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit (from Jesus' name only)

“When Jesus told His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, He was speaking of Himself (in the name of Jesus) being the fullness of the Godhead bodily,

By Jesus saying baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, certain thing had not taken place yet, as he was still on earth.

He was speaking of Himself knowing that He had all Power, Matthew 28:18 KJV, but that He had not ascended back to the Father yet, where He would exercise this Power.

The Holy Spirit would be sent in Jesus name, but not while still on earth. He said it was expedite for him to go so that the Comforter (Holy Ghost) could come, John 16:7 KJV.
Without having ascended, we could not have received the Holy Spirit, because He could only “send” the Holy Spirit from His Father from Heaven, John 14:25-26 KJV.

The fullness of the Godhead boldly means: Jesus is in the Father, and the Father is in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit would be sent in Jesus name. Jesus the fullness of Power. That’s why we are baptized in Jesus name.

This answers the question: why did the disciples not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost as Jesus commanded? The disciples knew Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead and to baptize in the name of Jesus was in fact baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The disciples never baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Only in the name of Jesus - for the remission of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit.”

I was met with this response,

Should I be rebaptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit (from Jesus' name only)

I was baptized in the name of Jesus only, by someone who is a pentocoast believer, which I don't ascribe to. I came across this verse in Acts For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Now I'm wondering if I made a mistake to not get...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Dan Perez]

It is a synecdoche. The writer need not repeat every word at every line. The manner of Christian baptism has long since been resolved and proper baptism is in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is nothing further to say of it.

The Matt 28:19 says to all NATIONS // ETHNOS who are these NATIONS and what does Nation // ETHNOS really mean >|??The Greek word NAME // ONOMA is in the Greek ACCUSATIVE CASE , which means LIMITED to uses that formula , of the FATHER , and of SON , and of the HOLY SPIRIT .

This is just one REASON that the APOSTLE Paul could not BAPTIZE any ONE , as written in 1 Cor 1:15 , BAPTIZED for my NAME .

It has been almost 2000 years that have PASSED , so when did the 11 disciples , verse 16 do this BAPTISM ?

dan p

 

[HTacianas]

The Matt 28:19 says to all NATIONS // ETHNOS who are these NATIONS and what does Nation // ETHNOS really mean >|??The Greek word NAME // ONOMA is in the Greek ACCUSATIVE CASE , which means LIMITED to uses that formula , of the FATHER , and of SON , and of the HOLY SPIRIT .

This is just one REASON that the APOSTLE Paul could not BAPTIZE any ONE , as written in 1 Cor 1:15 , BAPTIZED for my NAME .

It has been almost 2000 years that have PASSED , so when did the 11 disciples , verse 16 do this BAPTISM ?

dan p

1 Cor 1:15 has nothing to do with whether Paul baptized anyone in Corinth or not. He is talking about divisions that had come up between the Corinthians. They were creating factions based on who baptized them. Paul could -and did- baptize anyone he wanted to baptize.

As far as the nations go in Matthew, it means the gentiles. The gentile nations. The ethnos, meaning the ethnic groups.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19 (BSB)

This formula is almost universally held amongst Christians as the correct method in which a new convert is to be baptized. For good reason, it's the Lord's own word as He was about to ascend into Heaven. But I wonder where the disconnect is with the Apostles.

be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38 (BSB)

they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16 (BSB)

So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:48 (BSB)

On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5 (BSB)

There are many scriptures in the book of Acts that mention baptism, but only these four mention baptism into the name of someone. In all four, we see a common theme.

"into the name of Jesus"

So if Jesus said, the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, why didn't the Apostles obey that? Or were they even disobeying at all?

So clearly, we wouldn't say the Apostles were being disobedient. So there must be more going on here than what meets the eye.

What is name of the Father? Well some would say Yahweh perhaps, or Jehovah is another popular rendering. But it's not Father, father is a position or title, it's who He is. I am a father to my children, but it's not my name.

What is the name of the Son? Well of course we know that is Jesus, or Yahshua. Son is not His name, it's his position in the Godhead, His title per se, it's who Jesus is.

What is the name of the Holy Spirit? Again, same principle applies, the Holy Spirit's name is not Holy Spirit. That's who the Holy Spirit is.

The thing to understand here is Matthew 28:19 says, "baptizing them in the NAME of" not "baptizing them in the NAMES of". A singular name, not plural for 3. So what is the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Of course, it's what the Apostles used when they baptized, it's Jesus. The only revealed name of the Godhead that we have, in scripture is Jesus. We know from scripture that Jesus is Himself the full manifestation of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9)

Now don't misunderstand me, and don't misquote me here. I'm not Oneness Pentecostal or anything of the sort. I fully believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three in one. But I wonder if churches have the baptismal formula wrong when they baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", especially when the men who walked with Jesus only baptized "in the name of Jesus."

Yes, I came to this same conclusion, but many cannot see this because of traditions by men.
Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost is baptizing in the name of Jesus. The name “Jesus” represents all three persons of the Trinity. If it was a baptism of all three names it would use the plural form, and say baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But it says “name” (singular). As you pointed out Colossians 2:9 says that the fulness of the Godhead dwells within Christ Jesus bodily. This is the triune Godhead. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. So Jesus, the man is the chosen name or vessel to represent all three persons of the Trinity or God in our baptism, which is why the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus and not in the names of all three persons of the Godhead.

Side Note:

Please keep in mind I believe Modalism and Tritheism are unbiblical views of God. In fact, they are extreme wrong opposites. So I believe the Trinity or Godhead in that the Lord our God is one God (in number), and yet He exists as three distinct persons. The Lord our God is also a spirit being and He has always existed as the triune God eternally.

 

[Dan Perez]

1 Cor 1:15 has nothing to do with whether Paul baptized anyone in Corinth or not. He is talking about divisions that had come up between the Corinthians. They were creating factions based on who baptized them. Paul could -and did- baptize anyone he wanted to baptize.

As far as the nations go in Matthew, it means the gentiles. The gentile nations. The ethnos, meaning the ethnic groups.

Yes ETHNOS can be translated as GENTILES BUT :

In John 11:48 it reads , and the Romans shall come and take away BOTH or place and NATION / ETHNOS , how will you translate it now ?

Then in verse 50 , reads and that the whole NATION / ETHNOS perish not ?

how then does verse 50 mean here ? As ethnos can be translated as GENTILES , HEATHEN , GREEKS , JEWS ??

dan p