How to be baptized?

[Jaxxi]

There is a verse in Matthew 28:19 that says to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit " but then Acts 2:28 says "Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So which is it? By title or by name?

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Both

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit "

This, at least if you profess to be a Trinitarian.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There is a verse in Matthew 28:19 that says to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit " but then Acts 2:28 says "Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So which is it? By title or by name?

The Matthew account embraces the completeness of submersion in the Triune as One. "And OF the Holy Spirit" is the Baptism, who represents the Father and Son in the regenerated Christian. " My Father and I will make our home in you".
This is realized through the Holy Spirit.
John the Baptist baptized in water but One more powerful will baptize in the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Water baptism has no power .
Blessings.

 

[d taylor]

There is a verse in Matthew 28:19 that says to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit " but then Acts 2:28 says "Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So which is it? By title or by name?

These verses are speaking about two different situations.

 

[sandman]

Go with Acts 2:38
There are a couple of problems with the scripture in Matthew 28:19


The writings come 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 (CHURCH FATHERS: Oration in Praise of Constantine (Eusebius))

I used to have the names of the earlier manuscripts that quoted “in my name” but I not sure where they are…………..

However, the other problem with “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” 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.

 

[Anthony2019]

From the perspective of an Anglican.....

Baptism is valid if it is administered with water (immersion, sprinkling, or pouring) using the Trinitarian formula - in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

In my view, baptism should be available for both adults and children, The Apostle Peter said "Repent and be baptised, 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. The promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:38-39).

During the sacrament of confirmation, when candidates are mature enough to make a commitment to their faith, the Bishop lays hands on them and prays for them to be strengthened by the Holy Spirit.

"I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” (2 Timothy 1:5-7).

 

[.Jeremiah.]

“Name” is the key word in both

Notice, it does not say ‘names’ in your first quote

There is no contradiction between the two

 

[Jaxxi]

The Matthew account embraces the completeness of submersion in the Triune as One. "And OF the Holy Spirit" is the Baptism, who represents the Father and Son in the regenerated Christian. " My Father and I will make our home in you".
This is realized through the Holy Spirit.
John the Baptist baptized in water but One more powerful will baptize in the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Water baptism has no power .
Blessings.

Water baptism has no power? What are we supposed to do? Burn ourselves?

 

[Jaxxi]

“Name” is the key word in both

Notice, it does not say ‘names’ in your first quote

There is no contradiction between the two

No what I do notice is that Father and Son are not names but are titles. Should we use these when we have been given their names?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Water baptism has no power? What are we supposed to do? Burn ourselves?

Water baptism is an outward showing of what has already taken place, conversion by believing in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is salvation, takes place upon conversion. This is where the power of His Holy Spirit , through regeneration, is given to every believer.

 

[The Liturgist]

From the perspective of an Anglican.....

Baptism is valid if it is administered with water (immersion, sprinkling, or pouring) using the Trinitarian formula - in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

In my view, baptism should be available for both adults and children, The Apostle Peter said "Repent and be baptised, 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. The promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:38-39).

During the sacrament of confirmation, when candidates are mature enough to make a commitment to their faith, the Bishop lays hands on them and prays for them to be strengthened by the Holy Spirit.

"I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” (2 Timothy 1:5-7).

This is correct.

 

[Anthony2019]

This is correct.

I believe so. And I also believe that the sacrament of baptism is essential for those who wish to be saved.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is a verse in Matthew 28:19 that says to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit " but then Acts 2:28 says "Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So which is it? By title or by name?

We baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, as Christ commanded.

This is Christian baptism, and is done by Christ's command and authority; that is, we baptize in Christ's name meaning by His authority and command; the baptism itself is in the three-fold name of the Holy Trinity, not Jesus' name only.

The earliest Christian texts we have that actually tell us how the earliest Christians performed the Sacrament of Holy Baptism agree with it being done "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first taught all things already mentioned, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in running water. If running water is not available, then baptize in whatever water available; and if it isn't cold, it can be warm. If you have neither, then pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit." - The Didache, 7:1-5

The Didache, quoted above, is noteworthy as likely being the oldest Christian text we have that is outside of the New Testament itself, though there is some dispute over exactly when to date it. Its earliest date of composition being about 60 AD. The point of the Didache (literally "The Teaching"), being a basic teaching manual for the Church, a "Church manual" as it were. Providing both basic moral teaching, as well as practical teaching on Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and how to deal with false teachers trying to exploit the hospitality of the churches.

So we have here something that reflects how the earliest Christians--in the time the New Testament itself was written--actually performed Christian baptism. The New Testament itself doesn't give a precise way of administering the Sacrament, rather it assumes this was common knowledge. The Didache gives us a window into what that common knowledge in those very early years actually was, providing technical and practical information that was important for pastors and other leaders in the churches to have.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

“Name” is the key word in both

Notice, it does not say ‘names’ in your first quote

There is no contradiction between the two

This is a potentially dangerous take; this is a line of thinking that led to the "Jesus' Name Only" practice and heresy that resulted in the creation of the Oneness Pentecostal churches. And it is, essentially and in many ways, just another permutation of the ancient Modalist heresy.

The "name" of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

Jesus is the name of the Son only. As only the Son became flesh and dwelt among us.

We baptize in the Trinitarian formula because that's what the Church has always done. Though there are examples of some communities practicing baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" or some variation thereof, this appears to have been rare, and while not problematic at first, became problematic when it became associated with ancient Modalism.

As such, to combat Modalism, the Church has by and large rejected any deviation from the received formula of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in order to properly communicate biblical Christian truth against unbiblical heresy.

Not because the formula we use is magic. But because it is always the responsibility of the Church in every generation to mark a hard line in the sand, to insist on its confession, and to promote the truth of the Gospel. And exactly what lines need to be marked depends on the circumstances.

In the context of affirming the Trinity over and against both ancient and modern heresy, we must--by a state of Christian confession--insist on this point. Not in a legalistic, brutish way; but in a truth-affirming way. To not compromise our faith. This is part of the hard struggle of both insisting on the unity of our faith as well as the essence of charity we must exhibit toward one another.

We must stand firm in different ways at different times, without losing our charity and without compromising our precious confession.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

No what I do notice is that Father and Son are not names but are titles. Should we use these when we have been given their names?

Not titles.

"Father" is not a title. It's WHO He is. The Father is the Father. He's the Father of His own beloved Son, whom He has begotten before all ages.

These are not titles. These are the three Divine Persons of the Trinity themselves. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is truly and really God.

God the Son, begotten of the Father from all eternity, became man by the power of the Holy Spirit, conceived and born of the Virgin Mary: The Eternal and Only-begotten Son of the Father is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son.

Jesus isn't the Father.
Jesus isn't the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is the Son. And as the Son He is God with and from His Father; and the Holy Spirit likewise is God from the Father, and with the Father and the Son worshiped and glorified as true Almighty God.

One God, three Persons. Holy Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[.Jeremiah.]

No what I do notice is that Father and Son are not names but are titles. Should we use these when we have been given their names?

That’s a great question.
Since I never even thought of that concept, I am glad you mentioned it. I do agree with you.
In answer to your question, I can just say that I like the term: The Lord
But the Lord has been given many names in the Bible.
I don’t see a problem with using any of them.

 

[.Jeremiah.]

This is a potentially dangerous take; this is a line of thinking that led to the "Jesus' Name Only" practice and heresy that resulted in the creation of the Oneness Pentecostal churches. And it is, essentially and in many ways, just another permutation of the ancient Modalist heresy.

The "name" of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

Jesus is the name of the Son only. As only the Son became flesh and dwelt among us.

We baptize in the Trinitarian formula because that's what the Church has always done. Though there are examples of some communities practicing baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" or some variation thereof, this appears to have been rare, and while not problematic at first, became problematic when it became associated with ancient Modalism.

As such, to combat Modalism, the Church has by and large rejected any deviation from the received formula of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in order to properly communicate biblical Christian truth against unbiblical heresy.

Not because the formula we use is magic. But because it is always the responsibility of the Church in every generation to mark a hard line in the sand, to insist on its confession, and to promote the truth of the Gospel. And exactly what lines need to be marked depends on the circumstances.

In the context of affirming the Trinity over and against both ancient and modern heresy, we must--by a state of Christian confession--insist on this point. Not in a legalistic, brutish way; but in a truth-affirming way. To not compromise our faith. This is part of the hard struggle of both insisting on the unity of our faith as well as the essence of charity we must exhibit toward one another.

We must stand firm in different ways at different times, without losing our charity and without compromising our precious confession.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Unfortunately, I am unable to respond.

 

[The Liturgist]

No what I do notice is that Father and Son are not names but are titles. Should we use these when we have been given their names?

Yes, because the commandment in Matthew is to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and we have not been given the personal name of the Holy Ghost, and YHWH refers to God the Holy Trinity and not to the Father as some people think (we know this because in the Gospel According to John, our Lord self-identified as “Before Abraham was born, I AM” and YHWH means approximately “I AM that I AM”).

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe so. And I also believe that the sacrament of baptism is essential for those who wish to be saved.

Indeed, I believe it is the normal route of salvation - we are normally saved by being baptized and thus grafted onto the Body of Christ, which is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (however one defines the Church Catholic from an ecclesiological perspective).

There are of course exceptions - the baptism of blood being the most common, where someone is martyred for their faith in Christ prior to or without having been liturgically baptized.

An example of this would be the Ghanaian* who was martyred with the Coptic martyrs captured in Libya by ISIS a few years ago, who declared “Their God is my God!” and thus received a crown of martyrdom.

The other example consists of special actions of divine grace. “I will have mercy on who I will have mercy,” declares our Lord, and he did save the Good Thief on the Cross. These are extraordinary actions and anyone who believes in Christ should simply follow his commandment and get baptized, if they have not been validly baptized.

Even baptism does not guarantee salvation, but it does convey salvific grace and it does wash away all sins committed before baptism.


* 65-70% of Ghanaians are Christians, so he could have in theory been baptized previously, but 30% are Muslims, and there is also an overlapping 10% who syncretically or exclusively practice indigenous and pan-West African religions such as Voodoo imported from Benin (which is by the way extremely frowned upon in the mainstream of Ghanaian society). However, through his martyrdom he instantly became a Saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church.