Baptism confusion..... Acts 2:38 vs Matthew 28:19

[1gh2g3f4]

while i was talking with someone tonight (not here on this site but in my personal life)
i came across something i had no knowledge of..... or at least in the way that it was presented to me not a unknown of the scripture..... but the practice of this... so here is the question (going to have to try and set this up as in the way that it came to me..)... i dont think? ill be chiming in on this one as im not very well knowledgeable in this area.. so i am going to be doing a lot of listening.......

i was talking to a friend and we was talking about baptism... and i was talking about being baptized in the name of the father the son and the holy ghost... after i had said that and was in the bathroom thinking about it... i thought to myself/// in the name of the father the son and the holy ghost??? these are titles... did they actually do this out loud saying "i baptize you in the name of the ___ and the ____ and the ____???" (did they actually say the name of of the great i am.. yeshua and i dont know of the name of the holy ghost) i do know that in jewish tradition long ago that saying the name of god out loud was to be... i forget the term and explanation that was used but it was considered to be sacred.. and some how out of all of this.. they broke it down without certain letters and something else produced the name "yhwy" and this was the name that was understood and allowed to be written and spoken out loud... sooooo what am i talking about??? did they use titles instead of names i mean verbatim what it says.... (Matthew 28:19 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,)
seem pretty cut and dry to me.. but when i came back to see her reply she had told me i believe in a different way of doing this.. referring to (Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.)
and this totally blew my mind enough to sit back and think to myself.. what is this? and how did i over look this.. and how do i unify this... when she would say something like (i believe in something different) meaning to me.. its enough for her to say no you do it this way instead of that way... like you have literally chosen one over the other... but then again lets remember the trinity... that they are one in the same.. and the first one uses titles.... but the second one.. uses a name... YET... when jesus was in the flesh he was not the invisible god but the imagine of god... just like we are not god.. but made in the imagine of god... he was the word of god in flesh... this has confused me enough to come here so that i can have someone that is more knowledgeable in this area work this out for me.. my question is quite simply this...
(and my question could be wrong.)
if we was to baptize or be baptized.. do we do this action with saying.. "i baptize you in the name of the father the son and the holy ghost" or do we say...
"i baptize you in the name of of jesus christ." this is a very complex and different understanding for me in dealing with the trinity and titles.... please someone elaborate for me clearly im a simple man.... break this down barney style for me.

 

[1gh2g3f4]

personally i stick with in the name of the father and the son and the holy ghost..... and thats my own vote that i casted up top just to get the poll going... but i do stand ready to learn....

 

[seeking.IAM]

Many (most?) Christian churches deem only Trinitarian baptisms valid for membership, and will require persons not baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be re-baptized to join and/or participate in the sacraments.

 

[Dave-W]

In his amazing booklet "Burial by Baptism," Dr Derek Prince put (in my mind) the final nail it the coffin of "Jesus Name only" baptism.

His argument is based on this passage:

Acts 19.1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

His question was if the men had never even heard of a "Holy Ghost," why did Paul question their baptism? The obvious answer is that had they been baptized in the Matt 28.19 formula, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost at their baptism. Thus showing the formula in Acts was the full triune Father Son and Holy Spirit; and Acts saying just "in the name of Jesus" was a short hand abbreviation.

 

[1gh2g3f4]

In his amazing booklet "Burial by Baptism," Dr Derek Prince put (in my mind) the final nail it the coffin of "Jesus Name only" baptism.

His argument is based on this passage:

Acts 19.1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

His question was if the men had never even heard of a "Holy Ghost," why did Paul question their baptism? The obvious answer is that had they been baptized in the Matt 28.19 formula, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost at their baptism. Thus showing the formula in Acts was the full triune Father Son and Holy Spirit; and Acts saying just "in the name of Jesus" was a short hand abbreviation.

interesting.... but i guess the 2nd question in my mind is this... why did he not give the full baptism?

 

[Dave-W]

interesting.... but i guess the 2nd question in my mind is this... why did he not give the full baptism?

He did. "In the name of Jesus" was a short hand abbreviation for the full triune Matt 28 formula.

 

[Dave G.]

The baptism of Paul is by fire of the Holy Spirit ( thus the words"but another will come following me and baptize with fire"in Matthew 3:11). We believe in our church that we are baptized by the fire of the Holy Spirit when we call on the name of the Lord Jesus and are saved, and you are not saved till then. And I did that unknowingly in 1979 upstairs in my bedroom and received the Holy Spirit a few days later in a profound way. It wasn't until later in life in formal bible study that I found out what had happened to me. Water immersion baptism in our church is a symbolic offering basically and it is done in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. It without doubt cleanses sin but it is not key to salvation where the Holy Spirit is.

And for the record, both methods are important ones LOL ! In our church it is not just the words I baptize you in the name of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit but you are first asked if you believe that Jesus Christ was born, died, buried and resurrected, you answer that. Then asked if you have accepted Him as your Lord and Savior. If yes to both, you then are immersed. So with us, you have already called on Jesus Christ ( Pauls baptism of fire by the Holy Spirit), then water baptized..

 

[Ken Rank]

I would like to suggest that either or neither is fine. (gasp.... heresy!) But I do have a very good reason...

In Hebrew, the word "name" does not necessarily refer to "what we call somebody." The word, "shem," is referring to the name bearers character, reputation, and authority. So to "walk in the name of God" is to walk in the authority of God or walk in a manner that adds to His reputation. If you live by His Word and reflect His character attributes to the world around you, you are walking in His name. On the contrary, if you walk outside of His authority and in a manner that takes from His reputation you are profaning His name.

So when we are baptized we are not immersed into a word or letters, we are immersed into His authority over death. Messiah said He came in the Father's name which means He came in the Father's authority and power. Whether one is immersed into Jesus' name or the titles that describe the Godhead, we truly are being immersed into His authority and power... His shem... His name and what we say isn't as important as doing the act itself.

 

[1gh2g3f4]

He did. "In the name of Jesus" was a short hand abbreviation for the full triune Matt 28 formula.

this was what i was wondering in my head before i posted this..... now can you help me more with this... cause this would actually unify them and thats more important to me than any head knowledge... to unify the church more than all the division that we see....

 

[1gh2g3f4]

what i mean is... im literally going to take whatever it is i learn here to the very person that has grown up this way for 20 years... so i need to be convincing in this (and knowledgeable...)

 

[Ken Rank]

what i mean is... im literally going to take whatever it is i learn here to the very person that has grown up this way for 20 years... so i need to be convincing in this (and knowledgeable...)

I would give a little thought to post #8... what I said is true. We are dealing with 1st century Jews not 21st century English speakers. What did "name" mean to them? That is all that matters here.

 

[Dave-W]

what i mean is... im literally going to take whatever it is i learn here to the very person that has grown up this way for 20 years... so i need to be convincing in this (and knowledgeable...)

What Ken said is correct - "name" is not used in the same way.

And beyond that, try to find Prince's booklet.

Burial By Baptism: Derek Prince: Amazon.com: Books

 

[1gh2g3f4]

thing is i disagree with you saying that it is neither... (i could agree with you saying it is both) and i dont believe it is a act of the flesh but of the spirit.. so its not exactly something i take lightly. also i do believe in the power of his name.... you can read about this with the The Sons of Sceva

 

[~Anastasia~]

An ancient formula for baptism is actually triple-immersion. The person is immersed "in the name of the Father". The person is immersed again "and (in the name) of the Son". The person is immersed a third time "and (in the name) of the Holy Spirit".

That is the way we still do it today in the Orthodox Church, though we accept Trinitarian baptisms with a proper understanding of the Trinity (so not Mormon, for example) as valid baptisms and do not typically re-baptize.

Essentially all Trinitarian-believing fellowships use the same words, even if they don't triple-immerse.

While the Scriptures do include both mentions, and it confused me for some time, those who use the "Jesus' name only" formula are usually Oneness believers. IMO, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity being present in the fellowship you associate with is of prime importance to consider.

These issues were worked out by the early Church, and old heresies still arise. Rather than baptismal formula, I would suggest focusing on the understanding of Who God Is, as the most important foundation. The Nicene-Constantinople Creed was the hammered-out doctrine of what it meant to BE Christian in the early Church, after dealing with various heresies.

 

[Adstar]

while i was talking with someone tonight (not here on this site but in my personal life)
i came across something i had no knowledge of..... or at least in the way that it was presented to me not a unknown of the scripture..... but the practice of this... so here is the question (going to have to try and set this up as in the way that it came to me..)... i dont think? ill be chiming in on this one as im not very well knowledgeable in this area.. so i am going to be doing a lot of listening.......

i was talking to a friend and we was talking about baptism... and i was talking about being baptized in the name of the father the son and the holy ghost... after i had said that and was in the bathroom thinking about it... i thought to myself/// in the name of the father the son and the holy ghost??? these are titles... did they actually do this out loud saying "i baptize you in the name of the ___ and the ____ and the ____???" (did they actually say the name of of the great i am.. yeshua and i dont know of the name of the holy ghost) i do know that in jewish tradition long ago that saying the name of god out loud was to be... i forget the term and explanation that was used but it was considered to be sacred.. and some how out of all of this.. they broke it down without certain letters and something else produced the name "yhwy" and this was the name that was understood and allowed to be written and spoken out loud... sooooo what am i talking about??? did they use titles instead of names i mean verbatim what it says.... (Matthew 28:19 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,)
seem pretty cut and dry to me.. but when i came back to see her reply she had told me i believe in a different way of doing this.. referring to (Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.)
and this totally blew my mind enough to sit back and think to myself.. what is this? and how did i over look this.. and how do i unify this... when she would say something like (i believe in something different) meaning to me.. its enough for her to say no you do it this way instead of that way... like you have literally chosen one over the other... but then again lets remember the trinity... that they are one in the same.. and the first one uses titles.... but the second one.. uses a name... YET... when jesus was in the flesh he was not the invisible god but the imagine of god... just like we are not god.. but made in the imagine of god... he was the word of god in flesh... this has confused me enough to come here so that i can have someone that is more knowledgeable in this area work this out for me.. my question is quite simply this...
(and my question could be wrong.)
if we was to baptize or be baptized.. do we do this action with saying.. "i baptize you in the name of the father the son and the holy ghost" or do we say...
"i baptize you in the name of of jesus christ." this is a very complex and different understanding for me in dealing with the trinity and titles.... please someone elaborate for me clearly im a simple man.... break this down barney style for me.

You unify this by knowing that the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit are One. So both ways are correct.. Because Jesus is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit...

 

[1gh2g3f4]

An ancient formula for baptism is actually triple-immersion. The person is immersed "in the name of the Father". The person is immersed again "and (in the name) of the Son". The person is immersed a third time "and (in the name) of the Holy Spirit".

That is the way we still do it today in the Orthodox Church, though we accept Trinitarian baptisms with a proper understanding of the Trinity (so not Mormon, for example) as valid baptisms and do not typically re-baptize.

Essentially all Trinitarian-believing fellowships use the same words, even if they don't triple-immerse.

While the Scriptures do include both mentions, and it confused me for some time, those who use the "Jesus' name only" formula are usually Oneness believers. IMO, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity being present in the fellowship you associate with is of prime importance to consider.

These issues were worked out by the early Church, and old heresies still arise. Rather than baptismal formula, I would suggest focusing on the understanding of Who God Is, as the most important foundation. The Nicene-Constantinople Creed was the hammered-out doctrine of what it meant to BE Christian in the early Church, after dealing with various heresies.

speak on this "oneness believers"... because this is new to me and she spoke of this too... i concluded it as something totally different i guess... now i see that you and her are using the same words of "oneness." cause she did directly ask me that question.... and i did give some scripture that umm did refer to this.. as in there is no jew no greek slave or free ect ect.. we are all one in jesus christ. but i have this feeling that this isnt what you or her are talking about...so elaborate..

 

[~Anastasia~]

speak on this "oneness believers"... because this is new to me and she spoke of this too... i concluded it as something totally different i guess... now i see that you and her are using the same words of "oneness." cause she did directly ask me that question.... and i did give some scripture that umm did refer to this.. as in there is no jew no greek slave or free ect ect.. we are all one in jesus christ. but i have this feeling that this isnt what you or her are talking about...so elaborate..

The most common form is that they believe Jesus is the name of God, and that He is all three of whom we call Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They may believe He has gone through "phases" or they may believe that He wears these as "masks" to interact with us, but they do NOT believe in the Holy Trinity.

Be careful.

I do know some good people whom I love who are such believers, and my father was once part of a Oneness denomination while I was growing up. But the theology is problematic, according to the understanding of the early Church, which gave us the Holy Scriptures.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I should carefully qualify though - God IS one. One Essence, one God.

But Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all distinct Persons, not confused, mixed, or overlapping, and all are divine (God) - sharing a single Essence.

Yes, it's a bit logically confusing, if we try to make God in our image. But this is the foundation of the Christian faith.

 

[1gh2g3f4]

i agree with all of this... that is why she was quiet when i kept mentioning the trinity hmmm.... idk what to do with this now other than think deeply and pray about it... but after i sleep... LONGGG day.. thanks for everyone ones input it really cleared a lot of things up.