-
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.
- Status
If we were to find an explicit formulat it would be "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (matt 28:19)
But then we find the apostles disobeying the command of Christ and making some false converts by baptising in the name of Jesus only in Acts 19:5.
Just kidding.
There is strong evidence from many early church writings that the early church baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Didache which is really an early church pastoral manual:
70 AD 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).
215 AD 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).
So from this, flowing water, or natural water systems, rivers streams etc are preferable.
And yes, pouring on the head is acceptable as a last resort.
Fasting - well does anyone do that anymore?
So those people who say you MUST be baptised by full immersion - think again. You probably aren't baptising properly according to the early church practices anyway if the converts don't fast one or two days beforehand, or if you aren't using living water (eg rivers, streams etc).
Those people who say you MUST be baptised in the name of Jesus only - think again. Again, you probably already not doing it properly if the converts don't fast beforehand, or aren't baptised in a river or something like that.
If anything, it seems important to the early church that the person is baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not just the name of Jesus. No point baptising someone if they don't believe in the Father and/or the Spirit.
But then we find the apostles disobeying the command of Christ and making some false converts by baptising in the name of Jesus only in Acts 19:5.
Just kidding.
There is strong evidence from many early church writings that the early church baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Didache which is really an early church pastoral manual:
70 AD 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).
215 AD 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).
So from this, flowing water, or natural water systems, rivers streams etc are preferable.
And yes, pouring on the head is acceptable as a last resort.
Fasting - well does anyone do that anymore?
So those people who say you MUST be baptised by full immersion - think again. You probably aren't baptising properly according to the early church practices anyway if the converts don't fast one or two days beforehand, or if you aren't using living water (eg rivers, streams etc).
Those people who say you MUST be baptised in the name of Jesus only - think again. Again, you probably already not doing it properly if the converts don't fast beforehand, or aren't baptised in a river or something like that.
If anything, it seems important to the early church that the person is baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not just the name of Jesus. No point baptising someone if they don't believe in the Father and/or the Spirit.
In fact
The most usual form of baptism among Early Christians was for the candidate to stand in water and water to be poured over the upper body.[2] Other common forms of baptism now in use include pouring water three times on the forehead or complete submersion in water.
On the basis of Romans 6:3-11 it has been generally supposed to have been the custom of the early Church, but this view has been challenged from evidence of primitive pictorial representations and measurements of surviving early baptismal fonts
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#cite_note-ODWR-1
So there you go "baptism by full immersion only" people, don't get too comfortable in your dogma and traditions that you have the "right" way to baptise. Sprinkling, pouring, immersion or submersion, all seem to be acceptable practices. And all these are acceptable it seems by most denominations except your baptist, churches of christ, christadelphians, oneness pentecostals and 7th day adventists. THere's a nice table on that wikipedia page.
The most usual form of baptism among Early Christians was for the candidate to stand in water and water to be poured over the upper body.[2] Other common forms of baptism now in use include pouring water three times on the forehead or complete submersion in water.
On the basis of Romans 6:3-11 it has been generally supposed to have been the custom of the early Church, but this view has been challenged from evidence of primitive pictorial representations and measurements of surviving early baptismal fonts
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#cite_note-ODWR-1
So there you go "baptism by full immersion only" people, don't get too comfortable in your dogma and traditions that you have the "right" way to baptise. Sprinkling, pouring, immersion or submersion, all seem to be acceptable practices. And all these are acceptable it seems by most denominations except your baptist, churches of christ, christadelphians, oneness pentecostals and 7th day adventists. THere's a nice table on that wikipedia page.
Baptisim is greek name (i think) means TO BURRY.
Then how can yu burry somebody without immersing.(a thought)
lets take Mat:28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
Thats Jesus talking to the Disciples before His Ascending.
Then in Mat 16:17-19 Jesus told peter
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
MATTHEW 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
MATTHEW 16:19
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
So in anything Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and was told "the way you open i will open my kingdom"
Then on Pentecost Feast here the Holy Spirit comes down and fills Peter and other apostles and they went out preching and those people listening received the gospel and asked them what do we do then?
Then wacth who speaks first of all apostles, was peter coz he had the keys and he said in
Acts 2:36 - 39
" Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
ACTS 2:37
37
Then how can yu burry somebody without immersing.(a thought)
lets take Mat:28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
Thats Jesus talking to the Disciples before His Ascending.
Then in Mat 16:17-19 Jesus told peter
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
MATTHEW 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
MATTHEW 16:19
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
So in anything Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and was told "the way you open i will open my kingdom"
Then on Pentecost Feast here the Holy Spirit comes down and fills Peter and other apostles and they went out preching and those people listening received the gospel and asked them what do we do then?
Then wacth who speaks first of all apostles, was peter coz he had the keys and he said in
Acts 2:36 - 39
" Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
ACTS 2:37
37
S
Anyone who is serious about research is NOT going to lean heavily upon Wikipedia. It is a subscription based opinion encyclopedia.
Try studying the Greek lexicons. The Bible is our only authority. Church history often illustrates when and how apostasy began.
Biblical evidence includes:
1. The term baptizo means dip, plunge, or immerse
2. The fact that it required "much water"
3. The fact that it required people to "go down into" and "come up out of"
4. The fact that it is described as a burial
Try studying the Greek lexicons. The Bible is our only authority. Church history often illustrates when and how apostasy began.
Biblical evidence includes:
1. The term baptizo means dip, plunge, or immerse
2. The fact that it required "much water"
3. The fact that it required people to "go down into" and "come up out of"
4. The fact that it is described as a burial
O
Actually this is a good p9oint (not the false converts prat) but that the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. Why would they have done that if Jesus specifically told them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit? Because the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a singular name and His name is Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Re: apostasy, are you saying that as early as the first centuary the early church had already started to baptise wrongly?
Yes the bible is our only authority (actually, technically God is on our only authority, not a book), but it does not explicitly say that a person must be immersed, it does not forbid pouring. The fact remains that baptism by pouring, dipping and yes full immersion were all seen as acceptable practices in the early church, and in fact are still acceptable in most major christian denominations today except Baptist.
Re: Wikipedia. I disagree. Unfortunately the Greek lexicon won't tell you how the early church baptised. Early church writings can.
The contribution of many people to wikipedia and it's peer-reviewed nature may lead to a better quality and more factual product than not. Particularly older articles. If anything wikipedia is good because it covers a wide range of sources without being too biased.
In any case on the wikipedia link I provided there are references provided for the claims stated. So it is not entirely a person's own opinion. The statement that baptism was originally done by the person standing in water and the water being poured over them can be found in
Bowker, John (ed.) The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997
N
My pastor at the time of my baptism did something really cool. He was like "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....in the Jesus holy name... Amen!
*DUNK*
By the way, I believe in total submersion, whether you go down to a knee and allow the water to completely cover you or the pastor lays you back into the water, either way is fine by me as long as there is complete submersion.
*DUNK*
By the way, I believe in total submersion, whether you go down to a knee and allow the water to completely cover you or the pastor lays you back into the water, either way is fine by me as long as there is complete submersion.
N
BTW, if someone is very ill or in prison and sincerely wants to be baptized then I don't see why God would not allow some sort of compromise. However, if you there is nothing standing in your way, then one should not only be willing but able to do it as they did back in Jesus' day.
Reminds me of that old hymn about let's all go down to the river...
Reminds me of that old hymn about let's all go down to the river...
S
The Didache was NOT written in AD 70. It, unlike the actual apostolic writings (ie, New Testament) was not referenced by the Early Church fathers until the 3rd century. It may have been written as early as the first part of the 2nd century, but it is not a first century document and it has no apostolic inspiration.
And yes, the apostles warned their generation about a coming apostasy. Read the letters of Paul and John.
The use of art and physical facilities as belonging to churches is also very late... 3rd century on.
The Greek of the New Testament is called Koine. It is frozen in time. What it meant it still means. The Lexicons are consistent. The term for baptism (baptismos; baptizo; bapto) carries its action within the term itself. It was a functional term meaning dip, plunge, immerse.
And yes, the apostles warned their generation about a coming apostasy. Read the letters of Paul and John.
The use of art and physical facilities as belonging to churches is also very late... 3rd century on.
The Greek of the New Testament is called Koine. It is frozen in time. What it meant it still means. The Lexicons are consistent. The term for baptism (baptismos; baptizo; bapto) carries its action within the term itself. It was a functional term meaning dip, plunge, immerse.
I was a bit disappointed at my baptism that he did not use the name of Jesus. Because at the time I believed in the name of Jesus was the "right" way to do it. I was considering getting re-baptised but then I realised it's all a bit silly really re: formulas and rituals, there's no need.
I personally don't believe God is going to keep anyone out of heaven just because they didn't get wet enough. Water is only a symbol, and while it is nice to think we might be baptised in the same way they did in Jesus day, all in all it doesn't really matter that much IMO. Perhaps we should all travel to the river jordan and be baptised there.
I personally don't believe God is going to keep anyone out of heaven just because they didn't get wet enough. Water is only a symbol, and while it is nice to think we might be baptised in the same way they did in Jesus day, all in all it doesn't really matter that much IMO. Perhaps we should all travel to the river jordan and be baptised there.
S
Mahogony,
You really dont want to go down that line of think. Pretty soon nothing matters. God is very specific about certain things. He takes obedience very seriously. Water is NOT a symbol. Baptism answers a symbol or figure (1 Peter 3:21). The Jordan does not matter. We see baptisms recorded in Acts all over the Roman Empire. Let's not get foolish in our reasoning.
You really dont want to go down that line of think. Pretty soon nothing matters. God is very specific about certain things. He takes obedience very seriously. Water is NOT a symbol. Baptism answers a symbol or figure (1 Peter 3:21). The Jordan does not matter. We see baptisms recorded in Acts all over the Roman Empire. Let's not get foolish in our reasoning.
How seriously? Does God send people to hell for not being baptised properly? If no, then you have no case. Were Luther, Calvin, Zwingli also fooalish in their reasoning? Who believed the water is a symbol and how it was applied did not really matter? 1 Peter 3 says it is the answer of a good conscience towards God. The focus is upon the conscience or confession of the person being baptised, not the type of water. To say water is not a symbol implies there is something regenerative about H20. When last time I read the bible it is only the Spirit which causes that inward change, not water.
I was just reading some Barnes commentary about the water being a symbol:
Doth also now save us - The water saved Noah and his family from perishing in the flood; to wit, by bearing up the ark. Baptism, in the proper sense of the term, as above explained, where the water used is a symbol, in like manner now saves us; that is, the water is an emblem of that purifying by which we are saved. It may be said to save us, not as the meritorious cause, but as the indispensable condition of salvation. No man can be saved without that regenerated and purified heart of which baptism is the appropriate symbol, and when it would be proper to administer that ordinance. The apostle cannot have meant that water saves us in the same way in which it saved Noah, because that cannot be true. It is neither the same in quantity, nor is it applied in the same way, nor is it efficacious in the same manner. It is indeed connected with our salvation in its own proper way, as an emblem of that purifying of the heart by which we are saved.
I was just reading some Barnes commentary about the water being a symbol:
Doth also now save us - The water saved Noah and his family from perishing in the flood; to wit, by bearing up the ark. Baptism, in the proper sense of the term, as above explained, where the water used is a symbol, in like manner now saves us; that is, the water is an emblem of that purifying by which we are saved. It may be said to save us, not as the meritorious cause, but as the indispensable condition of salvation. No man can be saved without that regenerated and purified heart of which baptism is the appropriate symbol, and when it would be proper to administer that ordinance. The apostle cannot have meant that water saves us in the same way in which it saved Noah, because that cannot be true. It is neither the same in quantity, nor is it applied in the same way, nor is it efficacious in the same manner. It is indeed connected with our salvation in its own proper way, as an emblem of that purifying of the heart by which we are saved.
O
The 2nd and 4th answers are bot right. The correct way to biblically baptize someone is (full immersion) in the Name of Jesus. However as long as your heart is right with God the formula does not matter. To actually use the phrase ''I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'' is a trinitarian non -biblical way to baptize people, created by the Catholic in the 5th century.
S
Actually "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is what Jesus himself said (Mt. 28:19-20). Trinitarian or not, it was not created by Roman Catholicism in the 5th C.
There is no text in the NT which shows that any formula of any kind was quoted over the candidate at the time of baptism. What a person did at baptism was coming into the ownership of the godhead and by the authority of Jesus.
Besides all that, the Bible clearly teaches that the Trinity doctrine is in fact true. It is a theological term used to encapsulate the information we have.
There is no text in the NT which shows that any formula of any kind was quoted over the candidate at the time of baptism. What a person did at baptism was coming into the ownership of the godhead and by the authority of Jesus.
Besides all that, the Bible clearly teaches that the Trinity doctrine is in fact true. It is a theological term used to encapsulate the information we have.
Well you're quite wrong about that I think.. I mean there is much evidence from early church history that they baptised in the name of the three, as per Christ's command. I would also like to know how you interpret Matt 28:19, which is very much Trinitarian. If Jesus meant to say baptise in the name of Jesus or "baptise in My name" don't you think he would have said so? Jesus said the three for a reason. We know that "in the name of the" is not referring to the name of one person (i.e. Jesus) but to three distinct persons because of the "and of the" separating them.
Mat 28:19 Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
we must note that each of these nouns (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) are preceded by the definite article "THE" separated by the conjunction "AND" indicating distinct Persons! Neither logic nor the grammar of the text indicates that these THREE Persons are the one Person "Jesus." The singular "NAME" here indicates a unity of power or authority -- that there is only ONE God -- but that does not deny there are still THREE distinct Persons here, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/trinbap.htm
Baptising in the name of all three is important because the christian enters the family of God, the Father, Son, and Spirit. God is their Father, Jesus their Saviour, the Spirit their indwelling presence of God. We wouldn't want anyone baptised according to any "Jesus-only" heresies.
So church history shows they were baptised in the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. That is the formula they used. "in the name of Jesus" means they baptised in the authority of Jesus, or that the person is to be baptised into the service of Jesus Christ. It is not the formula they used. They baptised in the authority of Jesus Christ (in the name of Jesus Christ), but in the actual formula they said "I baptise you in the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit." according to Christ's command.
The proof that "in the name of Jesus" refers to the authority not a formula can be found here:
Act 4:7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name have you done this?
Act 4:10 be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in this name does this man stand before you whole.
O
The name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a singular name. Either the disciples knew this and were baptizing people exactly as Jesus instructed them or they refuse a direct command of Christ and batpized people incorrectly.
Acts 2:38 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.
Acts 8:12 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.
Acts 8 :16 For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Here are 5 references that the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus not using the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit formula. There is not solitary reference that anyone ever baptized anyone in the name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit (it simply not the biblical way to baptize). If the trinitarian formula is the correct way to baptize people, then why didn't the church in Acts (our examples) do it the correct way? The fact is as I stated the correct biblical way is to Baptize in the name of Jesus. If you can show other wise do it. If not the accept what the scripture teaches us to be true.
As far as the Trinity being a biblical teaching that is another debate for another thread and is definitely debatable.
Acts 2:38 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.
Acts 8:12 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.
Acts 8 :16 For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Here are 5 references that the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus not using the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit formula. There is not solitary reference that anyone ever baptized anyone in the name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit (it simply not the biblical way to baptize). If the trinitarian formula is the correct way to baptize people, then why didn't the church in Acts (our examples) do it the correct way? The fact is as I stated the correct biblical way is to Baptize in the name of Jesus. If you can show other wise do it. If not the accept what the scripture teaches us to be true.
As far as the Trinity being a biblical teaching that is another debate for another thread and is definitely debatable.
That actually raises an important question - should we be basing our doctrine on what Jesus said or what we believe the apostles to have said?
If it is not a biblical way to baptise there an awful lot of bible experts, commentaries, and early church writings to support it. I think the name of Jesus encompasses all three, but for an actual baptismal formula, I think there is much more evidence that the three names were used not just the name of Jesus.
- Status