- Mar 4, 2018
- 1,075
- 849
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Jesus Himself said we are to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Upvote
0
Considering it was Jesus saying “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, I would consider Paul to be affirming what He said in brevity rather than contradiction.If Matt. 28:19's use of "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" proves it's a formula that must be spoken, then it'd seem that Acts 2:38's use of "in the name of Jesus Christ" would prove it's a formula that must be spoken. (After all, "Jesus Christ" is different than "the Son" as far as wording is concerned, which suggests that Acts 2:38 isn't merely a shortened version of a Matt. 28:19.) But two baptismal formulas would mean the verses contradict each other.
What if "in the name of" simply means "by the authority of"? This would mean there is no baptismal formula, explaining the apparent discrepancy. The phrase "in the name of" has to mean "by the authority of" in Colossians 3:17 after all, right?
In Acts they baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the New Covenant name for the trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is also the Name of the Son of Man in whom dwells the trinity.
In Acts they baptized believers by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the New Covenant name for the trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is also the Name of the Son of Man in whom dwells the trinity.
Jesus Himself said we are to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Isn't Acts 2:38 water baptism, though, and yet in the name of Jesus Christ?Juet "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is good enough for me. The original English language Bibles, which do not exist on paper anymore, had "of the" three times and KJV fans take that text literally. I don't know why it should matter, but that is just my opinion.
Baptism "in the Name of Jesus" is a different experience: when you are saved and receive the Holy Spirit. To see the difference, read a bout Bible characters speaking in tongues immediately afterward. A baptism in water is NEVER "in the Name of Jesus Christ."
I apologize, as my last question may have been confusing. My questions was not, "Do you notice that the word 'baptized' is stated before the phrase 'remission of sins'?" Such a question sounds condescending, and I wasn't intending to ask such. Rather, my question was, "Would you agree that the Greek word eis (1519) in Acts 2:38 places baptism before the remission of sins?" In other words, whenever the original Greek says something like, "Do A eis B," the "A" part not only is stated before B but chronologically comes before B.Sure. I can read. I stand by what I said.
Thanks for the reply! We definitely need to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But if "in the name of" in Matt. 28:19 prescribes and oral formula for baptism, does this mean that "in the name of" in Colossians 3:17 prescribes an oral formula for whatever we do?Being baptized in the name of the F, S, and HS is extremely important. It is what makes baptism valid. The name F, S, HS is God's true name as revealed by Scripture. We are baptized into that true name. All of God's actions towards mankind are from his revealed Word to us. So in a sense, the name of God as F, S, and HS is in reality a summary statement of the whole of the content of Scripture. The name when combined with the water is what makes baptism...baptism. In other words, Baptism is a dual noun definition. The name of God and the water.
Now let's test this definition against a known problem....Mormon baptism.
Mormon baptism is in the name of the F, S, and HS, it has the right earthly element...water, and has a mode...immersion. Is Mormon baptism Christian baptism? No. Why? Because the name F, S, and HS as revealed in Scripture is NOT the same as the name F, S, and HS as revealed in the Book of Mormon. In other words, it is not the SOUND of the name F, S, and HS that gives meaning and validity to baptism but the MEANING of the SOUND "in the name of the F, S, and HS" that gives validity to baptism. And the meaning of the sound can only be found from Holy Writ.
What then is Mormon baptism? They don't have the name right but they have the water correct. Mormon baptism is just water and no Christian baptism.
Christian baptism is the true name of God as found in Scripture combined with water.
If "in the name of" means "stating the names," there's a discrepancy even if the absence of the Father and Holy Spirit is due to abbreviation. Namely, if we're looking at an exact formula, do we refer to the Christ as "the Son" or as "Jesus" when stating said formula?Considering it was Jesus saying “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, I would consider Paul to be affirming what He said in brevity rather than contradiction.
While “in the name of” does mean by the authority of, it still comprises a formula. When you see something that isn’t 100% clear, just look at the history and surrounding texts of the era. In this case, you will find that the early church considered Jesus’ words to be a formula (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).
Even if you don’t consider any surrounding historical texts, it would still be either a discrepancy or abbreviation when considering it to mean “by the authority of”. Is it by the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - or just the authority of Jesus Christ?
To clarify, just because I believe what Jesus taught should be used as a “formula” doesn’t negate “in the name of” also meaning “by the authority of”.If "in the name of" means "stating the names," there's a discrepancy even if the absence of the Father and Holy Spirit is due to abbreviation. Namely, if we're looking at an exact formula, do we refer to the Christ as "the Son" or as "Jesus" when stating said formula?
Defining "in the name of" as "by the authority of," however, eliminates any discrepancy. Being baptized in Jesus' authority means the same as being baptized in the Son's authority; these are two ways of saying the same thing. And since Matt. 28:19 also mentions that our baptism's authority is shared by the Father and Holy Spirit in addition to the Son, our baptism is in all three. As you would say, Acts would be an abbreviation of Matt. 28:19.
Just looking at the Scriptures themselves, isn't baptizing by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all that's required? (I'm looking at what the Bible requires, not what's traditional. I have no problem with, and in fact even supportive of, the baptizer telling the baptizee that the baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.)
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, the word "baptise" precedes remission. However, it is obvious that baptism does not regenerate people. Baptism is a consequence of being born again, not the means. It is important, yes. I was born again for about 2 years before I got baptised. I was on a warship when I got saved. The man who led me to the Lord did not practice believer's baptism. I knew nothing about it until I started going to a Baptist church. Once I realised that it was necessary, I asked to be baptised. The thief on the cross next to Jesus was not baptised. He was saved. I wonder how many people have repented on their deathbed and gone to heaven but without being baptised? If a Muslim accepts Christ and is murdered for it, will God reject him because he did not get baptised?I apologize, as my last question may have been confusing. My questions was not, "Do you notice that the word 'baptized' is stated before the phrase 'remission of sins'?" Such a question sounds condescending, and I wasn't intending to ask such. Rather, my question was, "Would you agree that the Greek word eis (1519) in Acts 2:38 places baptism before the remission of sins?" In other words, whenever the original Greek says something like, "Do A eis B," the "A" part not only is stated before B but chronologically comes before B.
Do you agree that baptism chronologically comes before the remission of one's sins? Thank you for your time! And again, I apologize for the confusion.
Oh, okay. Is your belief that it should be said as a "formula" not something you're saying is directly taught by the Scriptures; yet, it's something that makes sense to say because we're baptizing "by the authority of," etc.?To clarify, just because I believe what Jesus taught should be used as a “formula” doesn’t negate “in the name of” also meaning “by the authority of”.
I don't think the Bible says whether the thief on the cross was ever baptized or not but is silent either way. Nonetheless, I agree that God, as the source of salvation, chooses who obtains it. Also, since the people were "cut to the heart" in Acts 2:37 (NKJV) before being baptized, you're right that the heart change comes first.Thank you for clarifying. Yes, the word "baptise" precedes remission. However, it is obvious that baptism does not regenerate people. Baptism is a consequence of being born again, not the means. It is important, yes. I was born again for about 2 years before I got baptised. I was on a warship when I got saved. The man who led me to the Lord did not practice believer's baptism. I knew nothing about it until I started going to a Baptist church. Once I realised that it was necessary, I asked to be baptised. The thief on the cross next to Jesus was not baptised. He was saved. I wonder how many people have repented on their deathbed and gone to heaven but without being baptised? If a Muslim accepts Christ and is murdered for it, will God reject him because he did not get baptised?
The thief on the cross died before he could be baptised. His sins were forgiven, as we've said.I don't think the Bible says whether the thief on the cross was ever baptized or not but is silent either way. Nonetheless, I agree that God, as the source of salvation, chooses who obtains it. Also, since the people were "cut to the heart" in Acts 2:37 (NKJV) before being baptized, you're right that the heart change comes first.
Since baptism is "for [eis] the remission of sins" (v. 38), does this place remission of sins after baptism, considering what eis means? If so, the penitent heart would be first (v. 37), then baptism done out of a believing heart (v. 38), and then the remission of sins (also v. 38).
I believe that Jesus taught us the way to baptize - and I believe that the way we are to baptize also indicates the authority. We are directed to say whose authority we are baptizing in. In the other scriptures, it was about the authority, not the formula. For example, there were multiple types of baptism happening in Acts - so the apostles were specifying the Christian baptism - not other types of baptism. Since Jesus said to “baptize in the name of”, it is necessary to do that. However, it also describes the truth of the baptism - baptizing by the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.Oh, okay. Is your belief that it should be said as a "formula" not something you're saying is directly taught by the Scriptures; yet, it's something that makes sense to say because we're baptizing "by the authority of," etc.?
When you say, "We are directed to say whose authority we are baptizing in," are you referring to Matthew 28:19 or to the Didache? If Matthew 28:19, where specifically do you see it? Is it the phrase "in the name of"? Thanks for taking the time to have this conversation with me!I believe that Jesus taught us the way to baptize - and I believe that the way we are to baptize also indicates the authority. We are directed to say whose authority we are baptizing in. In the other scriptures, it was about the authority, not the formula. For example, there were multiple types of baptism happening in Acts - so the apostles were specifying the Christian baptism - not other types of baptism. Since Jesus said to “baptize in the name of”, it is necessary to do that. However, it also describes the truth of the baptism - baptizing by the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Full disclosure: for assistance with interpreting scripture, I do use surrounding historical documents and teachings of the early church. The Didache (very early - first century) affirms my interpretation of both formula and authority.
He could have been baptized at some point in his life, or not; we aren't told. Of course, it isn't a huge deal; after all, he didn't believe that God raised Jesus from the dead either (since He hadn't died yet), even though we must believe this (Romans 10:8-10). While we're saved by Jesus--and thus anyone He chooses to saves will be--we're under a new covenant after Jesus died (Hebrews 9:15-17), and what we're told today is what matters.The thief on the cross died before he could be baptised. His sins were forgiven, as we've said.
I don't believe it is possible to be so prescriptive. Paul came across some disciples in Ephesus. They had been baptised by John. Paul baptised them in the name of Jesus. Then they received the Holy Spirit baptism. They were already disciples, they just lacked some knowledge. I was in a similar position. I knew that my sins were forgiven well before I was baptised in water!He could have been baptized at some point in his life, or not; we aren't told. Of course, it isn't a huge deal; after all, he didn't believe that God raised Jesus from the dead either (since He hadn't died yet), even though we must believe this (Romans 10:8-10). While we're saved by Jesus--and thus anyone He chooses to saves will be--we're under a new covenant after Jesus died (Hebrews 9:15-17), and what we're told today is what matters.
My specific question was this: Since baptism is "for [eis] the remission of sins" (v. 38), does this place remission of sins after baptism, considering what eis means? If so, the penitent heart would be first (v. 37), then baptism done out of a believing heart (v. 38), and then the remission of sins (also v. 38).
I don't believe it is possible to be so prescriptive. Paul came across some disciples in Ephesus. They had been baptised by John. Paul baptised them in the name of Jesus. Then they received the Holy Spirit baptism. They were already disciples, they just lacked some knowledge. I was in a similar position. I knew that my sins were forgiven well before I was baptised in water!