Baptism, the simple version.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
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.
Jesus actually commanded the apostles to baptize in a singular name... They obeyed that command by baptizing in His name. Scripture reveals that in Jesus dwells all of fulness of the Godhead. (Col 2:8-12)
I was surprised to find that the forerunners of the Roman Catholic Church replaced the name of Jesus with the phrase, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This took place in 325 A.D. This is easily verified through multiple bible history encyclopedias. I included a few below.
Also, the attached image was provided by someone who converted from Catholicism.
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...”
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.”
Keep in mind that Jesus cautions about making God's word of none effect through man's tradition. (Matt. 7:13)
Attachments
And making it a requirement for salvation perverts the Gospel. At the same time there are a coupe of passages which link baptism and salvation very closely. Therefore the apostles made sure that baptism followed conversion almost immediately.
So having said that, if someone was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins, are they or are they not saved, in Christ, and a member of the Lord's body?
I was baptized in the phrase utilizing the titles, Father, Son and Holy Ghost prior to seeing the truth. The apostles consistently baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Also, Paul said that in baptism we are being buried with Jesus into His death wherein our sin is destroyed. (Rom. 6:3-6) I felt compelled to be baptized in the name of my Lord and Savior Jesus understanding it was He who was crucified for me. There was a definite change in my walk with the Lord after being obedient.
Consider throughout the word, the consequences of disobedience to God's specific instructions whether knowingly or unknowingly were dire. God's commands always hold significance. And since scripture reveals what name Jesus' was referring to, as seen in the actions of the apostles, I can come to only one conclusion. Water baptism is to be administered in the name of the Lord Jesus. Peter specifically stated this when he presented the first gospel message to those at Pentecost: ",,,be baptized EVERYONE of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sin..." He did not say be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
"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
My only confidence is in the bible as the final authority and it reveals that EVERYONE was baptized in the name of Jesus. I personally would not be willing to take that chance.
You didn't answer the question. I was baptized many, many years ago and I'm not even sure if it was in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins or the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. My wife was baptized in the coC more recently and it was in tge name of the Father----. And recently we've had a few new conversions and they were baptized in the name of the Father----- for the remission of sins. Your response didn't address the tough question posed. Also the original Greek states Father Son Holy Ghost in the gospels. Scripture is scripture and is not inconsistent nor contrary. That's why I came to the conclusion I did as initially stated. And I'm definitely not a novice in scripture and know what they say as well or better than most.
Sorry I'm lagging in my responses. I did respond. Post #167.
Truth is established by witnesses of at least 2-3 scriptures stating the same thing. matt. 18:16. The apostles obeyed Jesus' command they did not repeat the phrase. Clearly they understood what Jesus meant as evidenced by the way they administered baptisms.
You are not understanding the thief on the cross issue. Below is the complete text of one of my threads on this subject. Hope this clarifies it for you.
Repost
I continually encounter people trying to justify that baptism is not an absolute necessity for one's salvation by use (erroneously) of the thief on the cross as justification, as he was not baptized but yet saved by the Lord, which is true! BUT, the error in this is the lack of understanding of the scriptures. You must read and understand Hebrews 9:15-17 which clarifies why the thief on the cross was saved by Jesus without being baptized. Christ was still alive when this occurred meaning it was done while the old testament or covenant was still in effect; the new testament had not yet been established because Christ had not yet died. And since the Lord was still alive no one could possibly be baptized into Christ under NT salvation criteria. Baptism did not become a requirement as part of salvation until the new testament began which was after the death of Christ. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross no different than he forgave others during his earthly ministry, such as the woman caught in the act of adultery as recorded in John 8. Baptism should not even be an issue when discussing the thief on the cross, but unfortunately always is, but in error.
Hebrews 9:15-17
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
You just exposed the weakness of your false belief. Is Jesus God? Did Jesus command the apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? So you are actually in DISOBEDIENCE to God's specific instructions!
Amen! In Matthew 27:39-43, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.
A common argument used in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the Old Testament mandate.
So let's see, after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." and before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, while still under the Old Testament mandate, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
So in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or was it or FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? It would have to be the latter in order to agree with the Old Testament mandate argument from baptismal regenerationists. In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. Now did John baptize with water "in order to obtain" repentance or FOR (in regards to/on the basis of) repentance? Obviously, the latter.
Whatever baptism is "for" in Acts 2:38, it's "for" in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 - "in regards to" remission of sins received upon repentance. So the water baptism is not necessary for salvation under the Old Testament mandate, but is necessary for salvation under the New Testament mandate argument is bogus and doesn't hold water.
Under the Old Testament and the New Testament mandate, salvation is through belief/faith "apart from water baptism" (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43-47; 13:39; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
Thnx as well. The only thing I can say that I know to be true is that scripture does not contradict itself nor does one supercede another making the other wrong and void. Scripture must and does agree with itself. That's why I concluded as I did. One can't be right and the other wrong. Unfortunately, you see a lot of this kind of thinking which is prevalent on this and other similar forums wherein someone will pick one scripture over another so as to make it sound like scripture is contradictory. People will latch on to a scripture that mentions only belief, or only faith relative to salvation and ignor other scriptures, erroneously basing their belief structure on that one scripture alone that they chose. We see it all the time. So, Matthew 28:19 can't be wrong and Acts 2:38 right, or vice versa. They both have to be correct.
Yes, Jesus commanded them to baptize IN THE NAME of... What was the result? The apostles obeyed Him. They consistently water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The word says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1.
Must baptism be “in Jesus’ name”?
Should we baptize “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” or “in the name of Jesus?”
https://carm.org/oneness-pentecostal/must-baptism-be-in-jesus-name-baptize/
https://carm.org/about-baptism/shou...-son-and-holy-spirit-or-in-the-name-of-jesus/
I totally agree that scripture does not contradict itself. Matt. 28:19 and Acts 2:38 reveal the same thing. The instruction to use a singular name. The name is Jesus as evidenced by all detailed water baptism accounts., Consider lastly that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles, not names.
As mentioned, scripture reveals that in Jesus dwells all of the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And individuals are buried with Him through baptism. (Col. 2:9-12) I believe the two points provide more evidence of the truth.
May God Continue to Bless! Gotta go.
You may want to actually reference scripture. Scripture is the final authority.
Jesus told the apostles to baptize in a singular name, not a phrase using titles. Clearly they understood Jesus command to mean baptize in His name.
Acts 2:38 (Jews)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 8:12-17 (Samaritans-half Jewish-half Gentile)
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:43-48 (Gentiles)
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 11:13-14
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
Acts 19:2-6 (Disciples who did not realize they had to water baptized in Jesus name)
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Acts 22:14-16 (Paul's water baptism)
And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
One more thought on this to consider.
If one hears the word, believes it, confesses his belief as did the Ethiopian eunuch consistent with Romans 10:9, repents or is repentant, the next step is to be baptized. And if it's done BY THE AUTHORITY OF GOD (in the name of), why must anything be said by the one doing the baptizing? That puts the oness on the baptizer and not the one being baptized who has already fulfilled his part of the bargain. Putting the oness on the baptizer is wrong. If he then says the wrong thing does that invalidate the baptism? That makes no sense. And surely, God knows why the person is being baptized. Maybe we look at this incorrectly by placing too much emphasis and responsibility on the baptizer. All he really needs to do after the new believer does his part is simply immerse the believer without having to say anything at all. God knows the heart and intent of the believer and why he is being baptized.
This was already covered in the articles, but you have your biased agenda and only see and believe what you want to see and believe.