Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ?

[1689Dave]

Jesus told the disciples; “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)

“Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)

Almost every account of baptism in Acts shows the disciples baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ, and never baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as preferred today.

How do you resolve this with Matthew 28:19?

I understand the Acts formula as being consistent with the trinity. But believe the sects who baptize this way, yet deny the trinity are in error.

 

[TCassidy]

"In the Name of" is not a baptismal formula. It is a statement of authority.

I remember the old Keystone Cops. They would run after a criminal yelling, "Stop in the name of the law!" Nobody thought the cop's name was "Law." He was stating his authority to demand the man stop.

Matthew 28:18 says "Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." He then tells them to teach and baptise with the authority of the Godhead.

In Acts the disciples did exactly that. They baptized with the authority of Jesus, the Second Person of the Godhead, which was given to them via the Great Commission.

 

[1689Dave]

"In the Name of" is not a baptismal formula. It is a statement of authority.

I remember the old Keystone Cops. They would run after a criminal yelling, "Stop in the name of the law!" Nobody thought the cop's name was "Law." He was stating his authority to demand the man stop.

Matthew 28:18 says "Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." He then tells them to teach and baptise with the authority of the Godhead.

In Acts the disciples did exactly that. They baptized with the authority of Jesus, the Second Person of the Godhead, which was given to them via the Great Commission.

Thanks! interesting. I notice Phillip the evangelist baptized in Jesus' name too. Not being an apostle, Why or why should we not do likewise?

 

[TCassidy]

Why or why should we not do likewise?

We do baptize with the authority given to us in the Great Commission by Jesus.

 

[1689Dave]

We do baptize with the authority given to us in the Great Commission by Jesus.

I assume we do, but someone, possibly the Catholics changed it along the way. As a trinitarian I can see it both ways, but I don't know if God changed it without scripture saying so.

 

[TCassidy]

I assume we do, but someone, possibly the Catholics changed it along the way. As a trinitarian I can see it both ways, but I don't know if God changed it without scripture saying so.

What in the world are you talking about? Nobody changed anything. Nobody can change Jesus's authority. We baptize with the authority given to us by Jesus in the Great Commission. How do you figure somebody changed that? Do you really think mere men can change the authority of God?

 

[1689Dave]

What in the world are you talking about? Nobody changed anything. Nobody can change Jesus's authority. We baptize with the authority given to us by Jesus in the Great Commission. How do you figure somebody changed that? Do you really think mere men can change the authority of God?

Thanks for helping to understand this. I don't see an Apostle telling us to use what became the traditional Roman Catholic version in place of the Apostolic version.

 

[TCassidy]

Thanks for helping to understand this. I don't see an Apostle telling us to use what became the traditional Roman Catholic version in place of the Apostolic version.

What are you talking about? The Roman Catholic version of what? The Apostolic version of what? You are not making any sense.

 

[1689Dave]

What are you talking about? The Roman Catholic version of what? The Apostolic version of what? You are not making any sense.

Why did baptism change from "in the name of Jesus Christ" to "the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". And no trace of it doing so in scripture....

 

[TCassidy]

Why did baptism change from "in the name of Jesus Christ" to "the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". And no trace of it doing so in scripture....

You are not making any sense. Baptism is still done with the authority of God. Where did you get the idea it isn't?

I will be the first to agree that baptismal regeneration is heterodox, as is infant sprinkling, etc., but bible believers practicing scriptural baptism is clearly by the authority of God.

 

[1689Dave]

You are not making any sense. Baptism is still done with the authority of God. Where did you get the idea it isn't?

I will be the first to agree that baptismal regeneration is heterodox, as is infant sprinkling, etc., but bible believers practicing scriptural baptism is clearly by the authority of God.

I'm only saying it changed somewhere from "in the name of Jesus Christ" to "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" without one scriptural trace. I find this odd.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus told the disciples; “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)

“Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)

Almost every account of baptism in Acts shows the disciples baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ, and never baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as preferred today.

How do you resolve this with Matthew 28:19?

I understand the Acts formula as being consistent with the trinity. But believe the sects who baptize this way, yet deny the trinity are in error.

Believe that the Greek Construction of say Acts 2:38 is that peter is stating to them as jews, to receive Jesus as your Lord/Messiah, and that when they believed into Him to save them from their sins, that the water baptism would be acknowledging Him as the source of their sins now being remitted.
This would be to a all Jewish audience, who would have seen it a bit different than we would!

 

[TCassidy]

I'm only saying it changed somewhere from "in the name of Jesus Christ" to "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" without one scriptural trace. I find this odd.

Again, you display a dismal failure to understand the bible. I said, way back in post #2, ""In the Name of" is not a baptismal formula. It is a statement of authority."

We Baptize with the authority given to us by God. It has nothing to do with a magic formula that makes it "valid."

When I baptized I just said, "Buried with Him in Baptism, and raised to walk in the newness of life." No magic formula. No magic words. Just the obedience of a believer following the Lord in believers baptism.

 

[1689Dave]

Again, you display a dismal failure to understand the bible. I said, way back in post #2, ""In the Name of" is not a baptismal formula. It is a statement of authority."

We Baptize with the authority given to us by God. It has nothing to do with a magic formula that makes it "valid."

When I baptized I just said, "Buried with Him in Baptism, and raised to walk in the newness of life." No magic formula. No magic words. Just the obedience of a believer following the Lord in believers baptism.

Why didn't the disciples baptize as you say?

 

[TCassidy]

Why didn't the disciples baptize as you say?

They did. They baptized with the full authority of God.

 

[Revmitchell]

Its like watching the old "who's on first" skit.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm only saying it changed somewhere from "in the name of Jesus Christ" to "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" without one scriptural trace. I find this odd.

I am sure that they baptized in the name of the trinity, Luke was just emphasizing that peter specifically address jesus as the Lord they were be now baptized into for their salvation, Luke narrowed focused that moment.

 

[TCassidy]

I am sure that they baptized in the name of the trinity, Luke was just emphasizing that peter specifically address jesus as the Lord they were be now baptized into for their salvation, Luke narrowed focused that moment.

Another subject you have absolutely no understanding of.

"In the name of" is NOT a baptismal formula. It is a statement of AUTHORITY! We baptize because God gave us the AUTHORITY to baptize. We would not have to say anything. Just dunk them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Another subject you have absolutely no understanding of.

"In the name of" is NOT a baptismal formula. It is a statement of AUTHORITY! We baptize because God gave us the AUTHORITY to baptize. We would not have to say anything. Just dunk them.

How many times though are water baptisms given by ministers in church in the name of the 3?

 

[TCassidy]

Its like watching the old "who's on first" skit.

Now that Yeshua1 is involved, he will make it clear as mud. Better order more popcorn.