Does the Bible prescribe a baptismal formula?

ViaCrucis said:

The two aren't mutually exclusive. My point is simply that Christians, from the beginning, understood in Christ's words that they should baptize using this formula, "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit". That is, it's clear that Christians from the beginning saw in Christ's words a command to baptize in that way. And so that is how the Christian Church has always carried out Christ's command to baptize.

This was especially important during certain theological controversies of the 2nd and 3rd centuries; what likely began as a custom originating as understanding this as a command became an important confession and point of demarcation between orthodox baptism and heretical baptisms.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Albion said:

It does make sense.

However, what's the basis for thinking that Matt 28:19 is NOT an oral formula? It could hardly be made more of a formula than it already is, just as it stands!

In addition, it is questionable whether we can say that the formula is merely "advisable."

It might be that it is simply that, but again we are trying to make what looks for all the world to be a declarative sentence, an instruction given to the Apostles, into something that is just a generalization.

In the case of both of these questions then, it is necessary to adopt the less likely interpretation in order to have Matt. 28:19 say something other than what the church has believed about it since Roman times.

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

Most Christians, including we Lutherans who are arguably the first "Sola Scriptura" people, don't operate as though the operation of the Church is only by finding explicit proscriptions in the Bible. Rather the point of Sola Scriptura as a methodology of affirming Christian belief and practice is that it is the final court of appeal. In other words if we say X, but the Bible says not-X, then we go with what the Bible says.

As far as those areas where the Bible itself offers no explicit proscription, we recognize the historic and ordinary practice of the Church going back down through history.

Therefore, there may not be any explicit command in the Bible to use this proscribed formula from Matthew 28; and yet this is how the Church has always operated and there is no good reason to break with what has been done since the time of the Apostles themselves (as borne by historical witness such as the Didache and all the ancient and holy fathers).

The point of Sola Scripture is not to re-invent Christian practice according to our own personal interpretations and readings; but to always be grounded in the faith borne witness in those sacred texts. That which is at odds with Scripture should be done away with, but that which is not at odds with Scripture, which has been believed and done since the beginning, and which serves the good order and benefit of God's Church should be retained.

Thus the real question isn't, "Does the Bible proscribe a formula?" But "Is there any reason to do anything else than what we have always done?" Is there a biblical reason to change two thousand years of Christian practice? Especially when this practice serves to protect the faith, promote the Gospel, and serve the needs of the saints? The answer is a very clear no. Indeed, to go against this opens up a can of very bad worms, which can corrupt, pollute, and obfuscate the pure preaching and promotion of the Gospel and of our Christian catholic faith.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

When Jesus speaks against tradition, notice that He specifically condemns tradition used to nullify the word of God, not tradition as a whole.

There is not biblical proscription to celebrate Hanukkah, and yet Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. Jesus freely practiced Jewish traditions, as a practicing Jew. It was not tradition that Jesus condemned, but using tradition as a way to undermine the will of God that was the problem.

And, further, we have this word from St. Paul that we should hold fast to the tradition which we received (2 Thessalonians 2:15) and in the Epistle of St. Jude we read, "earnestly contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

The allergy some modern Protestants have with tradition is built upon, itself, a tradition that is largely suspicious of the belief and practice of the Christian Church of the past. It's a modern innovation--and itself a modern tradition ironically enough--that is borne not out of devotion to Scripture, but a fear of the past.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

"At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon." - John 10:22-23

The "Feast of Dedication" is Hanukkah, the re-dedication of the Temple following its pollution and desecration at the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes.



Paul doesn't say, only that he encourages the Thessalonians to hold to what they had received from them. Just because something isn't a divine institution doesn't make it bad. The Biblical Canon is a tradition that has been received, but simply because the Bible is the result of human beings doesn't make the Bible bad.



It's not about supplementation. It's about recognizing that there was a living, breathing community of Christians actively practicing and living out their faith. It is to that faith that we are to contend for. Not embracing innovative doctrines and heresy.



It was being used as an opportunity to condemn the work of Christ. There was nothing wrong with such washings in and of themselves, it was using them as a way to attack God's work through Jesus that is the problem.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...