Trinitarian formula????????

[ezek33]

I found this post in another thread and did not want to divert the thread from its attended subject, but I did want to ask a question to O, so I thought I would start a new thread.

Councils decided this long long ago... they were concerned with someone who had lapsed back to Pagan beliefs or who were following a heretic when they were baptized.

Their decision was that if it were a Trinitarian baptism then it need not be done again... hence... "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins"... in the creed.

If it wasn't done as a Trinitarian baptism then it was not correct in the first place and does not count. Thus, it has not yet been done. (Nothing to redo)

Forgive me...

Question, Why didn't the Apostles use the trinitarian formula when baptizing people? and do you really want us to think that all the people baptized in Acts by the Apostles were baptized incorrectly?

Acts 2:38 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 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8 :16 For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Sphinx777]

The trinitarian formula is the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (original Greek εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, eis to onoma tou Patros kai tou Huiou kai tou Hagiou Pneumatos, or in Latin in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti), or words to that form and effect referring to the persons of the Christian Trinity.

 

[E.C.]

Uhh... Matthew's Gospel reads "...baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"...

If that is what is read in the Gospel, than what makes one believe the Apostles baptized in a different formula?

 

[&Abel]

nothing wrong with baptizing in the name of all 3

all are a part of god and deserve to be mentioned

 

[GuardianShua]

I found this post in another thread and did not want to divert the thread from its attended subject, but I did want to ask a question to O, so I thought I would start a new thread.

Question, Why didn't the Apostles use the trinitarian formula when baptizing people? and do you really want us to think that all the people baptized in Acts by the Apostles were baptized incorrectly?

Acts 2:38 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 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8 :16 For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

There is no scripture or historical document showing that the disciples baptisted using the Trinitarian formula. The most ancient documents only show people being baptised in the name of Yahshua (Jesus.)

 

[GuardianShua]

nothing wrong with baptizing in the name of all 3

all are a part of god and deserve to be mentioned

Uhh... Matthew's Gospel reads "...baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"...

If that is what is read in the Gospel, than what makes one believe the Apostles baptized in a different formula?

The trinitarian formula is the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (original Greek εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, eis to onoma tou Patros kai tou Huiou kai tou Hagiou Pneumatos, or in Latin in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti), or words to that form and effect referring to the persons of the Christian Trinity.

The Trinitarian formula was introduced by Constantine the Great. It was he who determined that the Holy Spirit was a third person, and not a name title for Yahwah.

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: THE 1968 EDITION, Introduction to Christianity: By Joseph Ratzinger. page 82-83.

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome."

The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to that eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

Matthew 28:19. N.I.V.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it is today in our modern Bibles, but he always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

There is not a single occurrence of the disciples baptizing anyone using the Trinitarian formula. All of the scripture in the New Testament shows that people were baptized into the name of Jesus, even after Pentecost.

And when people in church leadership received the Holy Spirit, it was without the Trinitarian formula as in Acts 8:17.
Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

 

[GuardianShua]

nothing wrong with baptizing in the name of all 3

all are a part of god and deserve to be mentioned

God is the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Thessalonians 4:8
Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

 

[BigNorsk]

We actually don't know that they didn't use it. The Bible is written in everyday language. Notice here for instance how people use language. They say I came to believe in Jesus. Does that mean they don't believe in the Father and the Holy Spirit? No, of course not. Jesus is really shorthand for the entire faith.

I think it's strange how we use it exactly like we see it written in Acts all the time and don't think a thing about it, but when people read Acts, they do so in a very literalistic manner and assume if it isn't explicite that it is missing.

The baptismal "formula" is given in the Gospels, the accounts in Acts don't contradict the Gospels. It's that people read it as if it does. The strange thing is they will use the same language as we see in Acts themselves and mean more yet they can't see it in Acts. The accounts in Acts aren't looking directly at how the baptism is performed.

Marv

 

[MrPolo]

I found this post in another thread and did not want to divert the thread from its attended subject, but I did want to ask a question to O, so I thought I would start a new thread.

Question, Why didn't the Apostles use the trinitarian formula when baptizing people? and do you really want us to think that all the people baptized in Acts by the Apostles were baptized incorrectly?

Acts 2:38 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 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8 :16 For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Taken from here.

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5); they don't use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," others say "Jesus Christ"), meaning they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply on-the-fly descriptions by Luke. The four cannot stand up against the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

The phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" is not a technical version of the baptismal formula, simply Luke's way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John's baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults such as Mithraism. It also indicates the Person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:3).​

In other words, those examples from Acts are synecdoches to distinguish Christian baptism from other forms.

 

[GuardianShua]

We actually don't know that they didn't use it. The Bible is written in everyday language. Notice here for instance how people use language. They say I came to believe in Jesus. Does that mean they don't believe in the Father and the Holy Spirit? No, of course not. Jesus is really shorthand for the entire faith.

I think it's strange how we use it exactly like we see it written in Acts all the time and don't think a thing about it, but when people read Acts, they do so in a very literalistic manner and assume if it isn't explicite that it is missing.

The baptismal "formula" is given in the Gospels, the accounts in Acts don't contradict the Gospels. It's that people read it as if it does. The strange thing is they will use the same language as we see in Acts themselves and mean more yet they can't see it in Acts. The accounts in Acts aren't looking directly at how the baptism is performed.

Marv

With that rational the truth can never be known.

 

[GuardianShua]

Taken from here.

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5); they don't use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," others say "Jesus Christ"), meaning they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply on-the-fly descriptions by Luke. The four cannot stand up against the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

The phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" is not a technical version of the baptismal formula, simply Luke's way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John's baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults such as Mithraism. It also indicates the Person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:3).​

In other words, those examples from Acts are synecdoches to distinguish Christian baptism from other forms.

Did you not read the other post?

 

[BigNorsk]

With that rational the truth can never be known.

No, you seem to misunderstand. You use clear scripture to understand. We have a clear command to go and baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It's clear.

On the other hand, Acts really doesn't look directly at the act of baptism. It's speaking more generally.

So it's simple, instead of rationalisation, you go to where the issue is looked at directly. That would be the formula given in the Gospels.

It's not rationalisation at all.

Marv

 

[ezek33]

Uhh... Matthew's Gospel reads "...baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"...

If that is what is read in the Gospel, than what makes one believe the Apostles baptized in a different formula?

Because the Bible tells us how they baptized people?


Acts 2:38 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 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8 :16 For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Now if you can show me one instance that they baptized anyone any way other than in the name of Jesus I encourage you to quote the chapter and verse.

 

[E.C.]

Now if you can show me one instance that they baptized anyone any way other than in the name of Jesus I encourage you to quote the chapter and verse.

I am no expert on the Bible, but I will answer as best I can.

It would not surprise me of Paul wrote something in the Epistles. It would not surprise me if the hows and whats of baptism were in the Didache. I would have to look later this evening or maybe even tomorrow (depends on how work goes), but I will try to get back to you.

What I do know is this: the Eastern Orthodox Church baptizes "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" per A) how we've done so for 2,000 years per Paul telling Timothy "Hold to the Traditions that you have learned whether by word or my epistle" (paraphrased) and "Guard the deposit" and B) the verse where Christ commands us to do as such, "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

 

[ezek33]

I am no expert on the Bible, but I will answer as best I can.

It would not surprise me of Paul wrote something in the Epistles. It would not surprise me if the hows and whats of baptism were in the Didache. I would have to look later this evening or maybe even tomorrow (depends on how work goes), but I will try to get back to you.

What I do know is this: the Eastern Orthodox Church baptizes "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" per A) how we've done so for 2,000 years per Paul telling Timothy "Hold to the Traditions that you have learned whether by word or my epistle" (paraphrased) and "Guard the deposit" and B) the verse where Christ commands us to do as such, "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

I will help you out, the only way anyone was ever baptized in scripture is in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Lord or Lord Jesus Christ. The Trinitarian formula that O-USA claims is the correct way was not 1 time not even once used in the Bible.

 

[E.C.]

I think if we looked at the context of OrthodoxyUSA's post, he may have been meaning something different than what you are talking about in this thread...

 

[ezek33]

I think if we looked at the context of OrthodoxyUSA's post, he may have been meaning something different than what you are talking about in this thread...

Actually it is pretty clear what he meant.

If it wasn't done as a Trinitarian baptism then it was not correct in the first place and does not count.

If he is correct in what he is saying then every one the Apostles baptized in Acts were baptized incorrectly and ended up going to Hell. I would have to believe the Apostle were correct therefore OrthodoxyUSA is wrong.

 

[Musa80]

It would not surprise me of Paul wrote something in the Epistles. It would not surprise me if the hows and whats of baptism were in the Didache.

Did someone mention the Didache?

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.



Edit: To MichaelTheeArchangel. The Didache predates Constantine by a long shot.

 

[ezek33]

Did someone mention the Didache?

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.



Edit: To MichaelTheeArchangel. The Didache predates Constantine by a long shot.

I guess that would be good if we were to make our judgments according to the doctrines of man rather than scripture but since scripture itself warns us against such things I would cation you not to accept beliefs that are taught contrary to God's own words.

 

[Musa80]

I guess that would be good if we were to make our judgments according to the doctrines of man rather than scripture but since scripture itself warns us against such things i would cation you not to accept believes that are taught contrary to God's own words.

Excuse me? The command that Christ Himself gave to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has been posted already. It's scripture. Deal with it. How you think the Didache conflicts with that when it uses the exact same words is beyond me. There is no "doctrines of men" being pushed here.