Water Baptism-What is in a Name?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
#1
Have you taken on the name of Jesus Christ the bridegroom?

When a man and woman are united in marriage the new wife takes on her husband’s name. The preacher does not use descriptive titles associated with a fiancée in the marriage ceremony; i.e., “Mary Smith, do you take this officer, carpenter and son of Mr. and Mrs. Doe, as your lawfully wedded husband?” Rather he says “Do you take John Doe to be your lawfully wedded husband?” After the ceremony, the bride is Mrs. John Doe. The bride sheds her birth name and acquires a new name. The bride and groom are no longer two individuals but are one in the eyes of God..

In the book of Matthew, Jesus said, “…All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” He went on to say “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (28:18) Why would Jesus say that all power was given unto Him and in the next sentence state to baptize in the titles of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit? He did not. Jesus told the disciples to water baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; He was referring to His own name.

There is extensive information on the use of Jesus’ name as the baptismal formula of water baptism as recorded in history. All references indicate that the formula was changed from the use of Jesus’ name, to the phrase of “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” by the Roman Catholic Church after the development of the doctrine of the trinity in the 2nd century.

No individual or organization has the right to change what God ordains. Will we follow the direction of a worldly organization or will we stay committed to seeking and adhering to what the Lord Himself has commanded of us? And, is so clearly referenced in the Word ((Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

Information pertaining to the change in historical water baptism can be found in many encyclopedias; Britannica, Canney, Catholic, Hastings, New International, Religion & Ethics, Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, New Schaff-Herzog, etc.

Never forget there is POWER in the NAME OF JESUS.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
#2
We are TOLD to earnestly contend (seek out/strive) for the faith once given to the saints/apostles (Jude 3)

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE—Grant and Rowley (Edited bv James Hastings), 1963 Revised Edition, page 88
…“the primitive Church baptized ‘in’ or ‘into the name of Jesus’ (or ‘Jesus Christ’, or ‘the Lord Jesus’, (1 Corinthians 1:13, 15; Acts 8:16; 19:5).... Thus the spoken formula, ‘in the name of Jesus’, effected the presence of the risen Lord and gave the baptized into His possession and protection.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 8
“Justin Martys was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1967 edition, volume 2, pages 56, 59.
“An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of baptism cannot be found in the first centuries.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEIA, 1913 edition, volume 2, Page 265:
“They acknowledge that the original formula for baptism was in the Name of Jesus, but
the pope changed it.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1913 EDITION.
“There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty.

Thus St Paul (Acts 19:) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s Name: “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

In Acts 10 we read that St Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Those who were converted by Philip (Acts 8:) “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38).

Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION—Vol 2, pages 377, 378, 389.

“The Christian baptism was administered using the name of Jesus. The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history, Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr, when the trinity formula was used.

Volume 2, page 377, commenting on Acts 2:38, “Name was an ancient synonym for person. Payment was always made in the name of some person, referring to ownership, therefore, one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property, (“Ye are Christ’s I Corinthians 3:23.)
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
#3
The change noted in a Catholic publication:
Jesus Name.png
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
#4
All references indicate that the formula was changed from the use of Jesus’ name, to the phrase of “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” by the Roman Catholic Church after the development of the doctrine of the trinity in the 2nd century.
That is TOTALLY FALSE. All the Greek manuscripts concur that Matthew 28:19 is genuine Scripture. It was not altered by anyone. So let me quote from the Greek Orthodox Bibles (which have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church) as well as the Received Text.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005

Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος,

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος


Christians have a solemn responsibility to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Even the Critical Text has the same words:

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,
 

Deuteronomy

Well-known member
Jun 11, 2018
3,319
3,677
113
68
#5
Jesus told the disciples to water baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; He was referring to His own name.
Hi Wansvic, you are a Oneness Pentecostal, yes?

There is extensive information on the use of Jesus’ name as the baptismal formula of water baptism as recorded in history. All references indicate that the formula was changed from the use of Jesus’ name, to the phrase of “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” by the Roman Catholic Church after the development of the doctrine of the trinity in the 2nd century. No individual or organization has the right to change what God ordains.
The organization known as the Roman Catholic church didn't exist in the 2nd Century. There was a church in Rome however.

When you say that the RCC changed the formula, do you mean that they changed the Holy Scriptures themselves, that they changed the words of the Lord in Matthew 28:19?

As for the Trinitarian baptismal formula (for those who are interested), there is quite a bit of historical evidence for it so, beginning with The Didache (which was written in the 1st Century), here's some of what the Early Church Fathers had to say about Trinitarian baptism (just FYI, dates are included at the bottom of each reference).

The Didache
“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
Tatian the Syrian
“Then said Jesus unto them, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world’ [Matt. 28:18-20]” (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).
Hippolytus
“When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time” (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [A.D. 215]).
Tertullian
“After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at each several mention of their names” (Against Praxeas 26 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
“The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . . for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity” (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).
The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena
“Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, ‘Jesus Christ, Son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water.’ And Paul said,We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.’ After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ” (Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow—when Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?” (Letters 73:18 [A.D. 253]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth his disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy” (Letter to the People of His Diocese 3 [A.D. 323]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“You were led by the hand to the holy pool of divine baptism, as Christ was carried from the cross to this sepulcher here before us [the tomb of Jesus at Jerusalem]. And each of you was asked if he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And you confessed that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and again ascended, and in this there was suggested by a symbol the three days of Christ’s burial” (Catechetical Lectures 20:4 [A.D. 350]).
Athanasius
“And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go ye and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matt. 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity (On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia 2:28 [A.D. 361]).
.
 

Deuteronomy

Well-known member
Jun 11, 2018
3,319
3,677
113
68
#6
cont.........

Basil the Great
“The Holy Spirit, too, is numbered with the Father and the Son, because he is above creation, and is ranked as we are taught by the words of the Lord in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ He who, on the contrary, places the Spirit before the Son, or alleges him to be older than the Father, resists the ordinance of God, and is a stranger to the sound faith, since he fails to preserve the form of doxology which he has received, but adopts some newfangled device in order to be pleasing to men” (Letters 52:4 [A.D. 367]).
Gregory of Nazianz
“But not yet perhaps is there formed upon your soul any writing good or bad; and you want to be written upon today. . . . I will baptize you and make you a disciple in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and these three have one common name, the Godhead. And you shall know, both by appearances and by words that you reject all ungodliness, and are united to all the Godhead” (Orations 40:45 [A.D. 380]).
Jerome
“Seeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say that sins can be remitted among the Arians without the coming of the Holy Ghost? How is a soul purged from its former stains which has not the Holy Ghost?” (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 6 [A.D. 382]).
Gregory of Nyssa
“And we, in receiving baptism . . . conceal ourselves in [the water] as the Savior did in the earth: and by doing this thrice we represent for ourselves that grace of the resurrection which was wrought in three days. And this we do, not receiving the sacrament in silence, but while there are spoken over us the names of the three sacred persons on whom we believed, in whom we also hope, from whom comes to us both the fact of our present and the fact of our future existence” (Sermon For the Day of Lights [A.D. 383]).
Augustine
Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has Christ for its authority, not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24 [57] [A.D. 400]).
“O Lord our God, we believe in you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the truth would not say, ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ unless you were a Trinity” (The Trinity 15:28[51] [A.D. 408]).
Theodoret of Cyr
“And what need is there of many words, when it is possible to refute falsehood in few? We provide that those who year by year come up for holy baptism should carefully learn the faith set forth at Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers; and initiating them as we have been bidden, we baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, pronouncing each name singly” (Letters 145 [A.D. 444]).

~Deut
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,526
2,608
113
#7
Have you taken on the name of Jesus Christ the bridegroom?

When a man and woman are united in marriage the new wife takes on her husband’s name. The preacher does not use descriptive titles associated with a fiancée in the marriage ceremony; i.e., “Mary Smith, do you take this officer, carpenter and son of Mr. and Mrs. Doe, as your lawfully wedded husband?” Rather he says “Do you take John Doe to be your lawfully wedded husband?” After the ceremony, the bride is Mrs. John Doe. The bride sheds her birth name and acquires a new name. The bride and groom are no longer two individuals but are one in the eyes of God..

In the book of Matthew, Jesus said, “…All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” He went on to say “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (28:18) Why would Jesus say that all power was given unto Him and in the next sentence state to baptize in the titles of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit? He did not. Jesus told the disciples to water baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; He was referring to His own name.

There is extensive information on the use of Jesus’ name as the baptismal formula of water baptism as recorded in history. All references indicate that the formula was changed from the use of Jesus’ name, to the phrase of “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” by the Roman Catholic Church after the development of the doctrine of the trinity in the 2nd century.

No individual or organization has the right to change what God ordains. Will we follow the direction of a worldly organization or will we stay committed to seeking and adhering to what the Lord Himself has commanded of us? And, is so clearly referenced in the Word ((Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

Information pertaining to the change in historical water baptism can be found in many encyclopedias; Britannica, Canney, Catholic, Hastings, New International, Religion & Ethics, Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, New Schaff-Herzog, etc.

Never forget there is POWER in the NAME OF JESUS.

Baptims & Magic

I don't want to disparage the OP's character or motives; I'm sure he had good intentions.

But inadvertently, this whole argument reduces baptism into something akin to a magical incantation.


If the person baptizing you doesn't utter just the right words.... the magical incantation doesn't work.
God will withhold the benefits of baptism from you, and literally ignore all the transformations HE has generated within your own heart.... if you utter the wrong word in a ceremony.

A. If you utter the right words, the baptism magic works.
B. If you utter the wrong words, the baptism magic fails.

This is to reduce our relationship with God to an occult-like view, relying on magical incantations.



Conclusion:

1. This isn't ONLY a matter of poor exegesis of Matthew 28... it is ALSO a matter of completing misunderstand God's character and how he relates to us.

2. God doesn't give us magical spells to utter, which, if we speak them just right, we force magical things to happen.

3. This whole issue about "the name of Jesus", when thoroughly misunderstood, results in reducing our whole relationship with God to nothing more than a lot of magical incantations. It is, quite literally, to adopt an occult-like view.

4. I'm not placing any blame on the OP; he didn't go out and dream this up on his own.

.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,526
2,608
113
#8
Continued...

5. Finally, this whole premise is contrary to the clear biblical record: I cannot think of one place in scripture where God commands us to repeat some magic words, and if, with the best motives and best intentions, we quite accidentally get a few words wrong, he punishes us.

Words are not magical.

..
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#9
Christians have all manner of magical incantation, from the sinners prayer to baptismal name dropping, the Lord's prayer, even the ceremony of the church service. It's legalism!
Salvation is believe in you heart and confess with your mouth not sinners prayer or baptism nor being inducted into the church via ceremony of any kind.
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
ROMANS 10:9‭-‬10 NASB.
In other words if I and some other poor soul are trudging across the desert and I witness and testify to this fellow and he believes and confesses as stated above, and we both die of exposure and dehydration and starvation having never crossed even a puddle of water to dunk him in. His belief and confession unto salvation is all then he is saved and we will see him in eternity after with my Lord. No magical formula or incantation or ceremony required.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
#10
That is TOTALLY FALSE. All the Greek manuscripts concur that Matthew 28:19 is genuine Scripture. It was not altered by anyone. So let me quote from the Greek Orthodox Bibles (which have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church) as well as the Received Text.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος,


Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·


Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος


Christians have a solemn responsibility to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Even the Critical Text has the same words:

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,
I never stated the scripture was modified. It is indeed genuine scripture. What I said was that the Roman Catholic Church decided to modify and no longer follow the apostolic way of water baptizing. This occurred during the Nicene Council of 325 A.D.
Churches that water baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" are following a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
As far as Matt. 28:19 is concerned, Jesus said, "to baptize in the name of..."

What is the name? You can find the answer in the many recorded references to actual water baptisms that took place in the Book of Acts.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
#11
Continued...

5. Finally, this whole premise is contrary to the clear biblical record: I cannot think of one place in scripture where God commands us to repeat some magic words, and if, with the best motives and best intentions, we quite accidentally get a few words wrong, he punishes us.

Words are not magical.

..
Following God's Word has nothing to do with magic. There is power in the name of Jesus and we are told:

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." Col 3:16-17
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
2,055
1,524
113
#12
There is extensive information on the use of Jesus’ name as the baptismal formula of water baptism as recorded in history. All references indicate that the formula was changed from the use of Jesus’ name, to the phrase of “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” by the Roman Catholic Church after the development of the doctrine of the trinity in the 2nd century.
can you prove this? dont you believe in the trinity yourself?
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
2,055
1,524
113
#13
What I said was that the Roman Catholic Church decided to modify and no longer follow the apostolic way of water baptizing. This occurred during the Nicene Council of 325 A.D.
this was already proven false by many people in this thread. didache is from ad70 way before 325 and agrees with matthew 28:19-20
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
#14
can you prove this? dont you believe in the trinity yourself?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 8
“Justin Martys was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost”

FORMULA “With regard to the form used for baptism in the early Church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew 28:19 seems to speaks of the Trinitarian formula which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13, 6:11, Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3) speak only of baptism “in the Name of Jesus.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1967 edition, volume 2, pages 56, 59.
“An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of baptism cannot be found in the first centuries.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEIA, 1913 edition, volume 2, Page 265:
"They acknowledge that the original formula for baptism was in the Name of Jesus, but
the pope changed it.”

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS Scribner‘s T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1924, vol 1 Page 380
“Christian baptism, when connected with the mention of a formula, is alluded to four times in the Acts (2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) and the formula is never that of (Matthew 28:19) but is twice in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, 10:48) and twice in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16, 19:5).

That this was the usual formula of Christian baptism is supported by the evidence of the Pauline Epistles, which speak of being baptized only into Christ or into Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3).

Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded the disciples to baptize in the trine name?
The obvious explanation of the silence of New Testament on the trine name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the trine formula is a later edition. It would require very strong argument to controvert this presumption, and none seems to exist”.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS James Hastings, Published 1924, volume 2, Pages 377, 378, 384, 389:
Page 377. “It is clear from the contemporary usage (Acts 1:15; 11:13; Revelations 3:4) that ‘name’ was an ancient synonym for ‘person.’

Page 378 “Whereupon the latter sealed the reception of the candidate into the holy community by invoking ‘the fair name’ of the Lord Jesus upon his head (James 2:7; Revelations 7:3; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4).”

Page 384. “The formula used was “in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” or some synonymous phrase. There is no evidence for the use of the triune name.”

Page 389. The earliest known formula is, “in the name of the Lord Jesus” or some similar phrase...”
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
#15
this was already proven false by many people in this thread. didache is from ad70 way before 325 and agrees with matthew 28:19-20
Notice the information on the bottom right of the scanned Catholic Bible Catechism cover: Jesus Name.png
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,526
2,608
113
#16
Following God's Word has nothing to do with magic. There is power in the name of Jesus and we are told:

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." Col 3:16-17
In a person's name:

Authority:
To do something in another person's name, means to do it in their "authority".
This expression has been understood for thousands of years, and we still use the expression the same way in modern English.
The word "Jesus" is not a magical incantation.
When we do things "in the name of Jesus", it means we do things in his authority.

When we DO actually invoke his name, we are not doing it because the name has magical power...
we are using his name to show our submission to Christ's authority, and to show our actions are only by HIS authority and power, and not by our own.

Extra Proof of the Error:
Let me give you an extra bit of proof.
YOU do not even invoke the name of Jesus correctly, so you have NEVER ACTUALLY called upon his ACTUAL NAME!
The word "Jesus", the way we spell it and pronounce it, is NOT the way his name was originally spelled or pronounced.
You have NEVER even spoken his name correctly.
You have NEVER called upon the actual name of Jesus.
YOU HAVE NEVER CALLED UPON THE NAME OF JESUS, AS WAS COMMANDED IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT!!!
So, IF there is magical power in his NAME, then YOU have never even called upon his actual name... everything you've done so far has just been wrong... you've never even called on the actual name of Jesus.

If you go think about that for a while, you will eventually understand the conundrums, and the silliness of your position.

Grammar & Study:
This is not complicated.
To do something in a person's name just means to do it in their "authority."
This is not complicated.
This whole issue just requires taking an extra 5 seconds to think about basic language, and what the verse is saying.
God commands us to STUDY.
If we can't spend 5 seconds thinking about how basic language is used, then we've pretty much ignored that command to study.

There is nothing to debate here.
The argument you're making is just silly.

Conclusion:
I'm sure you're a nice person... but this is a really silly argument.
If you're a Oneness Pentecostal I'm sure you're a nice person, but you've had a lot of bad teaching.
Maybe all the bad teaching was by nice people with good intentions... but it's still bad teaching.
.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,412
6,698
113
#17
The prayer the Lord, our Savior, gave us, gave me, is not anincantatiion. Because of it I find myselfpraying in the first person plural much of the time. I have always emphasized each line He taught us knowing exactly what it means.

One line, They will be done, is repeated by many rote, but just as many truly mean it. Because I truly mean it, I always know my preyers ae not only heard but answered, if yo can wrap your head around it. Most folks do. God bless you always.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,526
2,608
113
#18
Addendum:


Another proof:

Another bit of proof the word "Jesus" has no magical power, is to show what happens when a lost man invokes the word.

What happens?
Nothing.

In the New Testament we see lost men trying to cast out demons "in the name of Jesus".
They are invoking his name, and nothing happens.
This is proof the word itself has no magical power.

However, BELIEVERS are given the special privilege of speaking and acting in Christ's AUTHORITY.
Because we are actually UNDER HIS AUTHORITY.
Because we are under his authority, we can speak and act in his authority.

This has nothing to do with the name "Jesus" having magical powers.
It has only do to with those under his authority making use of that authority.

.
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
5,247
1,104
113
#19
In a person's name:

Authority:
To do something in another person's name, means to do it in their "authority".
This expression has been understood for thousands of years, and we still use the expression the same way in modern English.
The word "Jesus" is not a magical incantation.
When we do things "in the name of Jesus", it means we do things in his authority.

When we DO actually invoke his name, we are not doing it because the name has magical power...
we are using his name to show our submission to Christ's authority, and to show our actions are only by HIS authority and power, and not by our own.

Extra Proof of the Error:
Let me give you an extra bit of proof.
YOU do not even invoke the name of Jesus correctly, so you have NEVER ACTUALLY called upon his ACTUAL NAME!
The word "Jesus", the way we spell it and pronounce it, is NOT the way his name was originally spelled or pronounced.
You have NEVER even spoken his name correctly.
You have NEVER called upon the actual name of Jesus.
YOU HAVE NEVER CALLED UPON THE NAME OF JESUS, AS WAS COMMANDED IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT!!!
So, IF there is magical power in his NAME, then YOU have never even called upon his actual name... everything you've done so far has just been wrong... you've never even called on the actual name of Jesus.

If you go think about that for a while, you will eventually understand the conundrums, and the silliness of your position.

Grammar & Study:
This is not complicated.
To do something in a person's name just means to do it in their "authority."
This is not complicated.
This whole issue just requires taking an extra 5 seconds to think about basic language, and what the verse is saying.
God commands us to STUDY.
If we can't spend 5 seconds thinking about how basic language is used, then we've pretty much ignored that command to study.

There is nothing to debate here.
The argument you're making is just silly.

Conclusion:
I'm sure you're a nice person... but this is a really silly argument.
If you're a Oneness Pentecostal I'm sure you're a nice person, but you've had a lot of bad teaching.
Maybe all the bad teaching was by nice people with good intentions... but it's still bad teaching.
.
Just because one does not see the significance in doing something doesn't mean it does not exist. It's all about having faith and being obedient to instructions in the bible.

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." Col 3:17

"And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 1 Sam 15:22
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,526
2,608
113
#20
Wansvic,

I want to apologize if my posts in this thread have seemed impolite or vitriolic.
It is always my goal to debate politely with the brethren, and sometimes I fail at that.

I'm glad you're here, and I'm glad you're sharing your views for discussion and debate.

But as far as the debate itself, I think your teachers have simply failed to make any serious investigation of the grammar and language of the text. This is the first rule in Bible study. The first rule in studying a text is to sort out what the language and grammar is actually saying. When people fail to thoroughly examine the language and grammar, they "jump to conclusions" based on simple misunderstandings. And then eventually... all this "conclusion jumping" evolves into bad doctrine.

There are simple errors here, from simple misunderstandings.
When these simple errors are not corrected, they lead to doctrinal problems.

The Bible commands us to study.
It is best if we take God's commands seriously, and engage in serious study of the text.

God Bless
Max
.