Baptism in what name(s)?

[tonychanyt]

Read my OP

I read it. Is the word "Trinity" in the Scripture?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I read it. Is the word "Trinity" in the Scripture?

This discussion isn't about the Trinity

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

From the Didache, "Concerning Baptism" reads

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.

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.

So yes, Luke is just writing the short, short version of the baptismal statement.

 

[RileyG]

In the name of the Trinity. Anything else is not a proper baptism.

 

[tonychanyt]

This discussion isn't about the Trinity

Right. So why did you use the word in your OP? Rewrite your OP without the word and see what you will get if you are interested in sticking close to the Scripture. That's what I did in my post.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

From the Didache, "Concerning Baptism" reads

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.

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.

So yes, Luke is just writing the short, short version of the baptismal statement.

That's interesting to know, but as this document is not authoritative as scripture, what it says is really a non factor

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Right. So why did you use the word in your OP? Rewrite your OP without the word and see what you will get if you are interested in sticking close to the Scripture. That's what I did in my post.

Respectfully, what are you talking about? I've read my OP now a few times and I don't see a single reference to the word, "Trinity" in it.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

In the name of the Trinity. Anything else is not a proper baptism.

So the Apostles got it wrong then?

 

[RileyG]

So the Apostles got it wrong then?

No. They were commanded to Baptize "IN the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)

 

[ByTheSpirit]

No. They were commanded to Baptize "IN the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)

Maybe, but what they did do is baptize only in the name of Jesus

 

[RileyG]

Maybe, but what they did do is baptize only in the name of Jesus

See the very first reply to this thread. All Christian Churches, with the exception of some oneness Pentecostals, baptize in the name of the Trinity.

 

[public hermit]

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

I tend to think of this as similar to the Donatist controversy, i.e., that the sacraments given by priests who had lapsed during persecution and then came back were inefficacious. Augustine's general solution was that the efficaciousness of grace was not in the one who did the work but in the work of grace, of which the sacrament is a sign.

I think a similar approach can be extended to this particular issue. The formula is not what does the work. Two are mention, and both are sufficient. I like the Trinitarian formula, and it has a very long history, but the scriptures also indicate some have been baptized in the name of Jesus. Both are sufficient, and neither one are the means of grace, per se.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

That's interesting to know, but as this document is not authoritative as scripture, what it says is really a non factor

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.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

See the very first reply to this thread. All Christian Churches, with the exception of some oneness Pentecostals, baptize in the name of the Trinity.

So if everyone else is doing it, that makes it right?

But that doesn't answer my question. Did the Apostles get it wrong? The Apostles baptized only in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

They didn't even baptize in the name of the Son. It was in the name of Jesus.

 

[public hermit]

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.

And since it does show up in Matthew, that means it's very early even if we assume the Matthew text is an interpolation.

 

[RileyG]

So if everyone else is doing it, that makes it right?

But that doesn't answer my question. Did the Apostles get it wrong? The Apostles baptized only in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

They didn't even baptize in the name of the Son. It was in the name of Jesus.

No. They did not get it wrong. They baptized the way Jesus commanded them to. This issue has long been resolved.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

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 suppose it depends on one's view of Sola Scriptura. I tend to hold to that.

 

[tonychanyt]

Respectfully, what are you talking about? I've read my OP now a few times and I don't see a single reference to the word, "Trinity" in it.

Right, I conflated your OP with your post #14. Sorry about that.

In the name of X means in the authority of X.

 

[childeye 2]

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.

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.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Right, I conflated your OP with your post #14. Sorry about that.

In the name of X means in the authority of X.

It's all good