Baptism in what name(s)?

[ByTheSpirit]

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."

 

[HTacianas]

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."

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.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

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.

That makes literally no sense at all. This would make sense if perhaps the book of Acts started with the "Triune" formula, but it doesn't. It's not even in the same book, or by the same author. This also presumes that the author of Acts, Luke, knew about the ending of the gospel of Matthew. Possible sure, but you can't possibly argue that from a position of authority. It's entirely possible that Acts and Matthew were written at exactly the same time. That's a pretty weak position to hold, if that's where you are.

 

[HTacianas]

That makes literally no sense at all. This would make sense if perhaps the book of Acts started with the "Triune" formula, but it doesn't. It's not even in the same book, or by the same author. This also presumes that the author of Acts, Luke, knew about the ending of the gospel of Matthew. Possible sure, but you can't possibly argue that from a position of authority. It's entirely possible that Acts and Matthew were written at exactly the same time. That's a pretty weak position to hold, if that's where you are.

Well, let's look at it. Why would Luke have to read the ending of Matthew to know the proper means of baptism?

 

[tdidymas]

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."

"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.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This question has been asked over the centuries....and over and over again. I side with NTacianas:

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.

But I don't go along with this:

Baptism is a testimonial, not a formula.

Baptism is at least these three: The water, the triune formula, and another Christian baptizing you. Baptism is not a testimonial----no way, shape or form.

 

[sandman]

There are a couple of questions/inconsistencies with “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

First, as you stated …..It does not explain the deliberate disobedience of the Apostles …. since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone by that formula. All the records in the NT have them baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ.

Some have excused this by stating that…. the words “Father Son and holy spirit” are implied when the apostles state “in the name of Jesus Christ.”…….. but that fantasy

I personally believe it is a deliberate forgery …of which Matthew contains a few, along with several others scattered about …. exclusively in the New Testament.

With that said, I have no absolute proof… (proof being, that it was not in the existing MMS which unfortunately is the earliest complete copy (Codex Sinaiticus) from the 4th century) so I will not totally dismiss it…But the biggest indicator (other than commentators… and the words of Eusebius (which I will give below) is the fact that the apostles totally ignored what Jesus said to them ~ IF ~ that was what Jesus in fact did say in 28:19.

To me that is huge and reflects willful disobedience of what Christ instructed them what to do shortly before He was received up into the heavens.
The Apostles obeyed and hung around when Jesus said “not many days hence” without even knowing how many days that would be…and yet,….. they don’t carry out His instruction for baptism??? ….ever!..... It’s not recorded anywhere in Acts or any of the epistles. …..That is why I am skeptical …. There are other things (below) but it just doesn’t fit that the apostles would completely blow that off.

So…. where there is no clear-cut evidence of scribal addition (forgeries) in the Word of God …the reliance of historical writings is considered, not as God breathed but as weighable information …. But the final authority has got to be the Word of God, not with assumptions. Because that burdens us with something that God strictly forbids for obvious reasons as is evident by the multiple denominations that have asserted their private interpretation.



From the Word of God, we have no use of the formula Father, son, and holy spirit.



The writings from Eusebius 260-340 A.D,
The Bishop of Caesarea, who is called the father of Church History due to his extensive writings on the subject. Eusebius quotes from Matthew a number of times in his writings. He quotes Mat 28:19 as "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name” 17 times including an oration in Praise of Constantine.

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching → “whether Christ was God or a creation of God”. …..If the manuscripts that he had in front of him were written as “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”…. Eusebius never would have quoted it as saying “in my name”

Oration in Praise of Constantine

"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 the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, 'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name.' The Oration in Praise of Constantine, [Chap. 16, page 907-908 of The Master Christian Library, Version 6.02]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A few other notations from various sources



The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."





The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."



The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."



The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."



Tom Harpur:

Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship.

 

[public hermit]

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."

This is a tough one, and you've laid out the basic issue nicely. I would say, firstly, we get the baptismal formula wrong if we think the efficaciousness of grace is in the formula. Secondly, the formula, itself, is more a public identifier than a metaphysical trigger for grace. In one sense, by being baptized in a name, you're identifying yourself with that name. This identification is not so that God will know who you are, but so the world will know. Whether it's in the Trinitarian formula or in the name of Jesus, the reference is the same. The only reason the difference between the Trinitarian formula and the name of Jesus formula would matter is if you didn't think they were referencing the same God.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

This is a tough one, and you've laid out the basic issue nicely. I would say, firstly, we get the baptismal formula wrong if we think the efficaciousness of grace is in the formula. Secondly, the formula, itself, is more a public identifier than a metaphysical trigger for grace. In one sense, by being baptized in a name, you're identifying yourself with that name. This identification is not so that God will know who you are, but so the world will know. Whether it's in the Trinitarian formula or in the name of Jesus, the reference is the same. The only reason the difference between the Trinitarian formula and the name of Jesus formula would matter is if you didn't think they were referencing the same God.

I think this may be a very good way to think about it. Thank you for sharing!

 

[ByTheSpirit]

There are a couple of questions/inconsistencies with “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

First, as you stated …..It does not explain the deliberate disobedience of the Apostles …. since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone by that formula. All the records in the NT have them baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ.

Some have excused this by stating that…. the words “Father Son and holy spirit” are implied when the apostles state “in the name of Jesus Christ.”…….. but that fantasy

I personally believe it is a deliberate forgery …of which Matthew contains a few, along with several others scattered about …. exclusively in the New Testament.

With that said, I have no absolute proof… (proof being, that it was not in the existing MMS which unfortunately is the earliest complete copy (Codex Sinaiticus) from the 4th century) so I will not totally dismiss it…But the biggest indicator (other than commentators… and the words of Eusebius (which I will give below) is the fact that the apostles totally ignored what Jesus said to them ~ IF ~ that was what Jesus in fact did say in 28:19.

To me that is huge and reflects willful disobedience of what Christ instructed them what to do shortly before He was received up into the heavens.
The Apostles obeyed and hung around when Jesus said “not many days hence” without even knowing how many days that would be…and yet,….. they don’t carry out His instruction for baptism??? ….ever!..... It’s not recorded anywhere in Acts or any of the epistles. …..That is why I am skeptical …. There are other things (below) but it just doesn’t fit that the apostles would completely blow that off.

So…. where there is no clear-cut evidence of scribal addition (forgeries) in the Word of God …the reliance of historical writings is considered, not as God breathed but as weighable information …. But the final authority has got to be the Word of God, not with assumptions. Because that burdens us with something that God strictly forbids for obvious reasons as is evident by the multiple denominations that have asserted their private interpretation.



From the Word of God, we have no use of the formula Father, son, and holy spirit.



The writings from Eusebius 260-340 A.D,
The Bishop of Caesarea, who is called the father of Church History due to his extensive writings on the subject. Eusebius quotes from Matthew a number of times in his writings. He quotes Mat 28:19 as "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name” 17 times including an oration in Praise of Constantine.

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching → “whether Christ was God or a creation of God”. …..If the manuscripts that he had in front of him were written as “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”…. Eusebius never would have quoted it as saying “in my name”

Oration in Praise of Constantine

"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 the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, 'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name.' The Oration in Praise of Constantine, [Chap. 16, page 907-908 of The Master Christian Library, Version 6.02]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A few other notations from various sources



The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."





The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."



The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."



The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."



Tom Harpur:

Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship.

I don't remember where I read it, but somewhere I read that in the Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel, the Triune formula was not present and it was added later, sort of like the Johannine Comma was. This would explain the differences in the text and I think better explain the apparent discrepancy between what the Apostles were told to do, and what they actually ended up doing.

Thank you for sharing your insight!

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Well, let's look at it. Why would Luke have to read the ending of Matthew to know the proper means of baptism?

Your initial comment read:

The writer need not repeat every word at every line.

I only bring Luke and his knowledge of Matthew's gospel into it, for only at the end of Matthew's gospel do we see the triune formula. Luke never once mentions it. To me, for us to have a scriptural foundation for a position there needs to be evidence in the text to support that. Say like this, if Luke had started Acts with a statement similar to Matthew's and then after that only used the singular name of Christ. It's like when writing a paper. You have a word that you'd like to shorten so you don't have to write it out each time, so on the first use you write it out, and then make a note that it will be referred to in the shortened manner after. Matthew's Triune formula does come first in the order of the text, but we have no evidence that he wrote his gospel before Luke wrote Acts, it's only first in the text because that's how the scriptures were formatted. Even if Matthew did write his gospel before Acts, there's no indication from Luke's writings that he was aware of what Matthew wrote. All evidence points to the gospel of Mark being the first gospel written and Luke and Matthew based their gospels off of that text.

Just what you said doesn't make a lot of sense and certainly doesn't seem to hold up under serious consideration, that Luke only used Jesus name because it wasn't necessary to repeat it after Matthew.

I think the other serious consideration we need to make here is that no where else in all of scripture is the phrase, "in the name of the Father" used. The Father's name is referenced in other places sure, just as Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17, but no where are we commanded to do something in the name of the Father, only in the name of Jesus.

 

[tonychanyt]

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."

Baptism in the name of?​

1 Corinthians 10:

2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Moses was God’s representative under the Law. The Israelites were symbolically baptized under his leadership.
For Christians, we have a different leader, 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,

Note the singular noun name.
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.

Acts 10:

48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Acts 19:

5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Romans 6:

3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:

27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Any one of these formulas will do. It is not mouthing the formula that works. It has to do with the repentant heart of the believer. He needs to admit Jesus as Lord and Savior, regardless of the formula.

 

[Andrewn]

"All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament,

This is one verse that Muslims quote to prove that Christians changed Jesus' words to suit their theological beliefs.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Baptism in the name of?​

1 Corinthians 10:

Moses was God’s representative under the Law. The Israelites were symbolically baptized under his leadership.
For Christians, we have a different leader, Matthew 28:

Note the singular noun name.
Acts 2:

Acts 10:

Acts 19:

Romans 6:

Galatians 3:

Any one of these formulas will do. It is not mouthing the formula that works. It has to do with the repentant heart of the believer. He needs to admit Jesus as Lord and Savior, regardless of the formula.

I think it does matter though. Any other doctrine we would say, absolutely it must be as described in scripture. Scripture is God's word after all right? Baptism, being a key part of the faith, should absolutely be done in the way the the Lord Himself prescribed.

Now yes, we could say that baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the same as baptizing in the name of Jesus, for Jesus is the fullness of God in body. But that's not the point. The Apostles and first generation of believers baptized only in Jesus name. So either
1) they were disobedient to what Jesus is purported to have said in Matthew 28
2) there's deeper meaning to what Jesus said
3) or the text was changed

Now since no where else in scripture do we find any command to do something "in the name of the Father.. or the Holy Spirit" Id likely side with the text being changed to support the Trinity. Not that it is even needed, for other passages of scripture clearly support the Trinity.

 

[tonychanyt]

I think it does matter though.

So what happened to those who did not do right?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

So what happened to those who did not do right?

Just because something has been done wrong in the past, doesn't mean it should continue to be done wrong in the future. Truth of the matter is this, the Apostles baptized only in the name of Jesus. That is scripture and you can't refute that. So either they were disobedient to the Lord or something else is at play. I'm leaning towards the latter. And as such, I feel it's pertinent to ministers to baptize properly in the future.

 

[tonychanyt]

I feel it's pertinent to ministers to baptize properly in the future.

Who decides what is proper?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Who decides what is proper?

Scripture does, doesn't it? Seems like an odd question to ask

 

[tonychanyt]

Scripture does, doesn't it? Seems like an odd question to ask

So what does the Scripture say?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

So what does the Scripture say?

Read my OP