How should we be baptized?

[MahogonySnail]

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.

Actually, there are no recorded accounts anywhere in the scriptures of what the apostles actually said when they baptised. There are no records of any of the apostles actually saying " I baptise you in the name of Jesus". If there were then you'd have much more proof to back up your claims. Because most bible commentaries I've read say to baptise in the name of Jesus means to baptise in His authority. Or as Slepsog mentioned, perhaps they used no particular formula at all.



Here's just some quick commentaries from e-sword:



Re: Acts 2:38, Gill commentary (my own emphasis in italics)

in the name of Jesus Christ; not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit, in whose name also this ordinance is to be administered, Mat_28:19 but the name of Jesus Christ is particularly mentioned, because of these Jews, who had before rejected and denied him as the Messiah; but now, upon their repentance and faith, they are to be baptized in his name, by his authority, according to his command; professing their faith in him, devoting themselves to him, and calling on his name. The end for which this was to be submitted to, is,

People's New Testament commentary:

In the name of Jesus Christ. "Upon the name" (Revised Version). Upon the ground of the name. In submission to the authority of Jesus Christ.

Barnes commentary:

In the name of Jesus Christ - Not εἰς eis, into, but ἐπί epi, upon. The usual form of baptism is into the name of the Father, etc. - εἰς eis. Here it does not mean to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ, but it means to be baptized for him and his service; to be consecrated in this way, and by this public profession, to him and to his cause. The expression is literally upon the name of Jesus Christ: that is, as the foundation of the baptism, or as that on which its propriety rested or was based. In other words, it is with an acknowledgment of him in that act as being what his name imports the Sinner

 

[MahogonySnail]

In the name of Jesus Christ - Not εἰς eis, into, but ἐπί epi, upon. The usual form of baptism is into the name of the Father, etc. - εἰς eis. Here it does not mean to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ, but it means to be baptized for him and his service; to be consecrated in this way, and by this public profession, to him and to his cause. The expression is literally upon the name of Jesus Christ: that is, as the foundation of the baptism, or as that on which its propriety rested or was based. In other words, it is with an acknowledgment of him in that act as being what his name imports the Sinner’s only Hope, his Redeemer, Lord, Justifier, King (Prof. Hackett, in loco). The name of Jesus Christ means the same as Jesus Christ himself. To be baptized to his name is to be devoted to him. The word "name" is often thus used. The profession which they were to make amounted to this: a confession of sins; a hearty purpose to turn from them; a reception of Jesus as the Messiah and as a Saviour; and a determination to become his followers and to be devoted to his service. Thus, 1Co_10:2, to be baptized unto Moses means to take him as a leader and guide. It does not follow that, in administering the ordinance of baptism, they used only the name of Jesus Christ. It is much more probable that they used the form prescribed by the Saviour himself Mat_28:19; though, as the special mark of a Christian is that he receives and honors Jesus Christ, this name is used here as implying the whole. The same thing occurs in Act_19:5.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

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?

The real question is, were the Apostles baptizing people incorrectly or did they have a clearer understanding of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 28:19?

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.

If it is the biblical way of baptizing people it is odd that not one single person was ever baptized that way in scripture. I agree the name of Jesus encompasses all three, that is my point. The is absolutely no biblical evidiece that all three name were ever used, if there is please correct me.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

In the name of Jesus Christ - Not εἰςeis, into, but ἐπίepi, upon. The usual form of baptism is into the name of the Father, etc.

Biblically, not only was it not the usual way, but it was never the way to baptize some one. Only in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Lord, was anyone ever baptized in scripture.

 

[MahogonySnail]

If it is the biblical way of baptizing people it is odd that not one single person was ever baptized that way in scripture. I agree the name of Jesus encompasses all three, that is my point. The is absolutely no biblical evidiece that all three name were ever used, if there is please correct me

The real question is, were the Apostles baptizing people incorrectly or did they have a clearer understanding of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 28:19?

Then why did Jesus mention all three names? and why would they need a "Clearer understanding of what Jesus was saying", because Jesus was not speaking in any riddles or parables in Matthew 28:19. Christ could have saved himself the effort and said "just baptise them in my name ".
"in the name of Jesus" anywhere in the scriptures does not necessarily mean that the name of Jesus is invoked or actually said as a formula or ritual, it means in the power of, or in the authority of.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

Then why did Jesus mention all three names? and why would they need a "Clearer understanding of what Jesus was saying", because Jesus was not speaking in any riddles or parables in Matthew 28:19. Christ could have saved himself the effort and said "just baptise them in my name ".
"in the name of Jesus" anywhere in the scriptures does not necessarily mean that the name of Jesus is invoked or actually said as a formula or ritual, it means in the power of, or in the authority of.

Maybe Jesus was trying to tell us something? He is God, completely God, fully God, wholly God. Let me ask you this if Jesus has told them to baptize in the name of the Son, would you have understood He meant the name Jesus? I assume your answer is yes, correct me if I am wrong. The thing is Jesus is not just the name of the Son. Jesus is the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God, not just the Son of God, and not just God the Son, He is fully and completely God. That is what the Apostles knew, that most cannot get their minds to accept. That is why the Apostles knew how to baptize people and that is in the name of Jesus.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Maybe Jesus was trying to tell us something? He is God, completely God, fully God, wholly God. Let me ask you this if Jesus has told them to baptize in the name of the Son, would you have understood He meant the name Jesus? I assume your answer is yes, correct me if I am wrong. The thing is Jesus is not just the name of the Son. Jesus is the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God, not just the Son of God, and not just God the Son, He is fully and completely God. That is what the Apostles knew, that most cannot get their minds to accept. That is why the Apostles knew how to baptize people and that is in the name of Jesus.

So you are telling me, that despite the disciples having walked 3 years with Christ, Jesus chose this opportune time to reveal to them that He was the Father the Son and Holy Spirit? I somehow do not think Jesus was preaching about His nature here, he was giving them specific instructions for them to follow. He was quite specific about mentioning the three. Would it make any sense to mention His name three times? "baptise them in the name of Jesus, and in the name of Jesus, and in the name of Jesus". Don't think so.

I disagree with your statements about Jesus being the name of the Father.
The name of the Father is YHWH.
The name of the Spirit is "Holy Spirit"

In Rev 14:1 they had Christ's Father's name written on their forehead, not Christ's name.

Christ even said that He came in His Father's name (not His own) (Jn 5:43).
Christ did not send Himself down to earth, the Father sent Him.

Jesus said the Father was greater than him. (Jn 14:28).
The Holy Spirit was another comforter.(Jn 14:16)

Throughout the new testament the Father, Son and Spirit are referred to as distinct and separate persons.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

So you are telling me, that despite the disciples having walked 3 years with Christ, Jesus chose this opportune time to reveal to them that He was the Father the Son and Holy Spirit? I somehow do not think Jesus was preaching about His nature here, he was giving them specific instructions for them to follow. He was quite specific about mentioning the three. Would it make any sense to mention His name three times? "baptise them in the name of Jesus, and in the name of Jesus, and in the name of Jesus". Don't think so.

I disagree with your statements about Jesus being the name of the Father.
The name of the Father is YHWH.
The name of the Spirit is "Holy Spirit"

In Rev 14:1 they had Christ's Father's name written on their forehead, not Christ's name.

Christ even said that He came in His Father's name (not His own) (Jn 5:43).
Christ did not send Himself down to earth, the Father sent Him.

Jesus said the Father was greater than him. (Jn 14:28).
The Holy Spirit was another comforter.(Jn 14:16)

Throughout the new testament the Father, Son and Spirit are referred to as distinct and separate persons.

The reason you are confused on how someone should be baptized and why you cannot accept the truth that the disciple baptized only in the name of Jesus, even though all of scripture supports that view, is because you accept the false polytheistic view of the Trinity.

 

[Slepsog4]

Wings,

Here again you make false accusations based on your own inability to come to grips with the Trinitarian perspective. No one believes in 3 gods, so stop saying so.

The biblical godhead has 3 persons with a divine nature.

They have:

1. Unity
2. Diversity
3. Equality

To deny any one or more of these is to develop a false view of God which in turn results in an unbiblical worldview.

These are also seen in the church as well as in marriage.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

Wings,

Here again you make false accusations based on your own inability to come to grips with the Trinitarian perspective. No one believes in 3 gods, so stop saying so.

The biblical godhead has 3 persons with a divine nature.

They have:

1. Unity
2. Diversity
3. Equality

To deny any one or more of these is to develop a false view of God which in turn results in an unbiblical worldview.

These are also seen in the church as well as in marriage.

I do not think you understand the meaning of the word world view. Believing Jesus is God or just God the Son, will not change ones world view.

 

[Slepsog4]

You change the nature of God, you get a false god and a false view of reality (ie, worldview)