This is sort of a nuance of the topic as pertains to an efficacious baptism, but I'd like to hear your take of what the phrase "living waters" implies to you in scripture.I suppose it depends on one's view of Sola Scriptura. I tend to hold to that.
This is sort of a nuance of the topic as pertains to an efficacious baptism, but I'd like to hear your take of what the phrase "living waters" implies to you in scripture.It was written during the Apostolic era and several church fathers considered it as canonical. So it shows the practice of the Apostolic era church.
I really think this might be a good discussion for a separate thread, but here's my "take"This is sort of a nuance of the topic as pertains to an efficacious baptism, but I'd like to hear your take of what the phrase "living waters" implies to you in scripture.
The full Greek reads:This is sort of a nuance of the topic as pertains to an efficacious baptism, but I'd like to hear your take of what the phrase "living waters" implies to you in scripture.
Please quote the context.I'd like to hear your take of what the phrase "living waters" implies to you in scripture.
Thank you for your response. That's very thorough. I note that elsewhere Scripture says:The full Greek reads:
1. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε· ταῦτα πάντα πρειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. 2. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον· εἰ δ’ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν θερμῷ. 3. ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος. 4. πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσμος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύναται· κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.
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 not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice 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 whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
So in this instance living water means a moving body of water, aka a river or a spring. So it is pointing to following the examples of Jesus being baptized in the Jordan and the Ethiopian eunuch. So the Didache gave some alternatives since someone might not be near an actual river.
This is not about Jesus reference of "Living Water" but rather a practical document. If you aren't near a river, use something else. Worst case, pour water over the head three times. So for example, my church does not have a baptismal pool but a large font so an adult leans over and the priest pours a large pitcher of water over their head three times.
Baptism for the remission of sins.Please quote the context.
The op involves baptizing in the Name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins. When the Didache was mentioned which prescribes "living waters" this scripture came to mind, and I felt led to share it:I really think this might be a good discussion for a separate thread, but here's my "take"
In the OT, the LORD was said to be the fountain of living water (Jeremiah 2:13).
In the NT, the term is rare. Jesus mentions living water two times.
The only other time in scripture the term is used, is in Revelation where it is said that Jesus would lead His people to springs of living water.
- Samaritan woman
- This instance is in connection with Jesus giving living water to those who ask of Him.
- To the crowds at the feast.
- This instance is in reference to the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus would give after He was glorified.
All that to say, the term itself likely implies the Holy Spirit is the source of life. Water gives life. We know that those who have the Spirit and are led by Him have life, so yeah, the Holy Spirit of God is the living water that imparts life to those who receive.
Now how do we connect that with my OP?
I don't mind you asking, just saying that such a question might be a good topic for a separate thread is allThe op involves baptizing in the Name of the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. When the Didache was mentioned which prescribes "living waters" this scripture came to mind, and I felt led to share it:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
It could superficially mean running water. As a deeper meaning, it could refer to Jesus.Baptism for the remission of sins.
Yes, I do in the sense that it appears the water bears witness on earth. Living waters in a baptism could imply a spiritual collective in Christ the son, in oneness with God the Father. Meanwhile the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit bear record in Heaven. 1 John then seems to conclude that the witness of God is greater than if we have the witness of men; As if the witness of men is not important compared to the witness of the Spirit, water, and blood as pertains to the sincerity or fulness of one's conviction; That through the blood of God's Image in Christ Jesus, which was shed through horrific torture, there is a remission of the penalty for sin (and these three agree in one).I don't mind you asking, just saying that such a question might be a good topic for a separate thread is all
So from your reference in 1 John, you see "living water" as a reference to water baptism then?
Jesus said to his apostles, "go forth into...". He said that in 33 AD. So in 33 AD they went forth into all the world. Now why would they have to wait until something was written years later to go out and do it?Your initial comment read:
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.
That is not mine …that is a partial of one of several sources I included…This is one verse that Muslims quote to prove that Christians changed Jesus' words to suit their theological beliefs.
So if you are sola scriptura, how do you trust anything in Scripture if one passage is false, and do you really want to get into the Johannine Comma? Maybe it is Matthew who is correct and Luke forged things?That is not mine …that is a partial of one of several sources I included…
What Muslims believe has nothing to do with us. They believe many things that are contrary to the written Word.
My biggest obstacle with Matt_28:19 remains the truth….. that the apostles did not follow what Jesus supposedly said…. that reason alone substantiates the forgery.
So if you are sola scriptura, how do you trust anything in Scripture if one passage is false, and do you really want to get into the Johannine Comma? Maybe it is Matthew who is correct and Luke forged things?
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]
In this case, I don't think Matthew was looking for the spelling of a name but its authority.baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19 (BSB)
that is possible, and I'll accept that as an acceptable alternative to my question. As I have previously stated, Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form, so invoking the name of Jesus is basically the same thing IMHO.In this case, I don't think Matthew was looking for the spelling of a name but its authority.
So then, you think baptism is a formula? Then, a formula for what? Salvation?This question has been asked over the centuries....and over and over again. I side with NTacianas:
But I don't go along with this:
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.
The term "Triune formula" in classical Reformation Theology is that Baptism is done in the "name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" per Jesus' command in Mt. 28.you think baptism is a formula
Notice it is singular (name), and not names (plural).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."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?