Water Baptism-What is in a Name?

What it boils down to is the early church fathers were taught by the Apostles and were Trinitarians as they were taught.

If you study history, you will see I am right.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1163&bih=527&sxsrf=ACYBGNTQDo0uHutSpQT9mpsMbL-IjvPBFg:1577823897073&ei=ma4LXqmHBJaQtAa4_4OgBQ&q=+baptize+"in+the+name+of"+:newadvent.org&oq=+baptize+"in+the+name+of"+:newadvent.org&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1553944.1569066..1569410...0.2..0.133.1966.6j12......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.SNyv02x--0s&ved=0ahUKEwjpt5yH3ODmAhUWCM0KHbj_AFQ4HhDh1QMICw&uact=5

Nice try, but that was not the case.

1 Corinthians 1:10-19 King James Version (KJV)
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1 Corinthians 1:10-19 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Stop Arguing With Each Other
10 Brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, I beg all of you to agree with each other. You should not be divided into different groups. Be completely joined together again with the same kind of thinking and the same purpose.

11 My brothers and sisters, some members of Chloe’s family told me that there are arguments among you. 12 This is what I mean: One of you says, “I follow Paul,” and someone else says, “I follow Apollos.” Another says, “I follow Peter,”[a] and someone else says, “I follow Christ.” 13 Christ cannot be divided into different groups. It wasn’t Paul who died on the cross for you, was it? Were you baptized in that pPaul’s name? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius. 15 I am thankful because now no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I also baptized the family of Stephanas, but I don’t remember that I myself baptized any others.) 17 Christ did not give me the work of baptizing people. He gave me the work of telling the Good News. But he sent me to tell the Good News without using clever speech, which would take away the power that is in the cross of Christ.

Where does that title come from? I have never heard Peter called that before

God was not obligated to make a way for man to come back into right standing with Him. God's grace is seen in His willingness to make a way. (Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and FEW there be that find it.) One's belief in something will be evidenced by a corresponding action. (James 2:14-26) Mankind's obligation is to BELIEVE and FOLLOW steps provided by God upon acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. Upon faith in Jesus as Messiah an individual takes a step of faith by repenting. Another step of faith is seen in their submitting to water baptism in Jesus' name. Another step of faith is seen in praying for/receiving the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

Consider what Paul meant when he stated that not all have obeyed the gospel. (Romans 10:16, 2 Thess. 1:8)

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Romans 1;16:19

I did not personally use that term. My post you refer to has a list of the historical encyclopedias that address the fact that all water baptisms were administered in the name of the Lord Jesus prior to 325 a.d. The forerunners of the official Roman Catholic Church began insisting the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost replace the singular name of Jesus during baptisms. Many Protestant churches have no clue they are using a man-made tradition.

I believe the encyclopedia reference is from a Catholic encyclopedia. I think the Roman Catholic Church refers to him in that way.

When the bible contradicts the historical record of church fathers than you can bet the bible is correct.

Didache is dated to first century, so your theory does not hold true, friend.

I did not personally use that term. My post you refer to has a list of the historical encyclopedias that address the fact that all water baptisms were administered in the name of the Lord Jesus prior to 325 a.d. The forerunners of the official Roman Catholic Church began insisting the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost replace the singular name of Jesus during baptisms. Many Protestant churches have no clue they are using a man-made tradition.

I believe the encyclopedia reference is from a Catholic encyclopedia. I think the Roman Catholic Church refers to him in that way.

The Apostles taught the early church fathers. Thus their writings reflects what the Apostles taught them.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

2 Thessalonians 3:6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

I am speaking of the traditions taught by the apostles to the early church fathers. Not the one's Jesus condemns.

The quotes I gave from the church fathers disproves your claim. They are historical. You only have a humble opinion not in line with history.

For the person who referred to the catholic encyclopedia, here is the quote. They are partly correct, but lacks the historical information.

"
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).

Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of Christ", either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: "In whom then were you baptized?" This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.

The authority of Pope Stephen I has been alleged for the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only. St. Cyprian says (Epistle 72) that this pontiff declared all baptism valid provided it was given in the name of Jesus Christ. It must be noted that the same explanation applies to Stephen's words as to the Scriptural texts above given. Moreover, Firmilian, in his letter to St. Cyprian, implies that Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person has been baptized "with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost".

A passage that is very difficult of explanation is found in the works of St. Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit I.3), where he declares that if a person names one of the Trinity, he names all of them: "If you say Christ, you have designated God the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and Him Who was anointed Son, and the Holy Ghost in whom He was anointed." This passage has been generally interpreted as referring to the faith of the catechumen, but not to the baptismal form."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Chapter 3.
The statement of the Apostle, that all things are of the Father by the Son, does not separate the Spirit from Their company, since what is referred to one Person is also attributed to each. So those baptized in the Name of Christ are held to be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, if, that is, there is belief in the Three Persons, otherwise the baptism will be null. This also applies to baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit. If because of one passage the Holy Spirit is separated from the Father and the Son, it will necessarily follow from other passages that the Father will be subordinated to the Son. The Son is worshipped by angels, not by the Spirit, for the latter is His witness, not His servant. Where the Son is spoken of as being before all, it is to be understood of creatures. The great dignity of the Holy Spirit is proved by the absence of forgiveness for the sin against Him. How it is that such sin cannot be forgiven, and how the Spirit is one.

32. But perhaps some one may say that there was a reason why the writer said that all things were of the Father, and all things through the Son, 1 Corinthians 8:6 but made no mention of the Holy Spirit, and would obtain the foundation of an argument from this. But if he persists in his perverse interpretation, in how many passages will he find the power of the Holy Spirit asserted, in which Scripture has stated nothing concerning either the Father or the Son, but has left it to be understood?

40. Where, then, the grace of the Spirit is asserted, is that of God the Father or of the Only-begotten Son denied? By no means; for as the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so, too, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, Who has been given us. Romans 5:5 And as he who is blessed in Christ is blessed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, because the Name is one and the Power one; so, too, when any divine operation, whether of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, is treated of, it is not referred only to the Holy Spirit, but also to the Father and the Son, and not only to the Father, but also to the Son and the Spirit.

41. Then, too, the Ethiopian eunuch of Queen Candace, when baptized in Christ, obtained the fullness of the sacrament. And they who said that they knew not of any Holy Spirit, although they said that they had been baptized with John's baptism, were baptized afterwards, because John baptized for the remission of sins in the Name of the coming Jesus, not in his own. And so they knew not the Spirit, because in the form in which John baptized they had not received baptism in the Name of Christ. For John, though he did not baptize in the Spirit, nevertheless preached Christ and the Spirit. And then, when he was questioned whether he were perchance himself the Christ, he answered: I baptize you with water, but a stronger than I shall come, Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. They therefore, because they had been baptized neither in the Name of Christ nor with faith in the Holy Spirit, could not receive the sacrament of baptism.

42. So they were baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, and baptism was not repeated in their case, but administered differently, for there is but one baptism. But where there is not the complete sacrament of baptism, there is not considered to be a commencement nor any kind of baptism. But baptism is complete if one confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If you deny One you overthrow the whole. And just as if you mention in words One only, either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and in your belief do not deny either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, the mystery of the faith is complete, so, too, although you name the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and lessen the power of either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, the whole mystery is made empty. And, lastly, they who had said: We have not heard if there be any Holy Spirit, were baptized afterwards in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And this was an additional abundance of grace, for now through Paul's preaching they knew the Holy Spirit.

43. Nor ought it to seem opposed to this, that although subsequently mention is not made of the Spirit, He is yet believed in, and what had not been mentioned in words is expressed in belief. For when it is said, In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the mystery is complete through the oneness of the Name, and the Spirit is not separated from the baptism of Christ, since John baptized unto repentance, Christ in the Spirit.

44. Let us now consider whether as we read that the sacrament of baptism in the Name of Christ was complete, so, too, when the Holy Spirit alone is named, anything is wanting to the completeness of the mystery. Let us follow out the argument that he who has named One has signified the Trinity. If you name Christ, you imply both God the Father by Whom the Son was anointed, and the Son Himself Who was anointed, and the Holy Spirit with Whom He was anointed. For it is written: This Jesus of Nazareth, Whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:38 And if you name the Father, you denote equally His Son and the Spirit of His mouth, if, that is, you apprehend it in your heart. And if you speak of the Spirit, you name also God the Father, from Whom the Spirit proceeds, and the Son, inasmuch as He is also the Spirit of the Son.

45. Wherefore that authority may also be joined to reason Scripture indicates that we can also be rightly baptized in the Spirit, when the Lord says: But you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:5 And in another place the Apostle says: For we were all baptized in the body itself into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13 The work is one, for the mystery is one; the baptism one, for there was one death on behalf of the world; there is, then, a oneness of working, a oneness of setting forth, which cannot be separated.

...

Chapter 4.
The Holy Spirit is one and the same Who spoke in the prophets and apostles, Who is the Spirit of God and of Christ; Whom, further, Scripture designates the Paraclete, and the Spirit of life and truth.

55. But no one will doubt that the Spirit is one, although very many have doubted whether God be one. For many heretics have said that the God of the Old Testament is one, and the God of the New Testament is another. But as the Father is one Who both spoke of old, as we read, to the fathers by the prophets, and to us in the last days by His Son; Hebrews 1:1-2 and as the Son is one, Who according to the tenour of the Old Testament was offended by Adam, Genesis 3:17 seen by Abraham, Genesis 18:22-23 worshipped by Jacob; Genesis 28:17 so, too, the Holy Spirit is one, who energized in the prophets, 2 Peter 1:21 was breathed upon the apostles, John 20:22 and was joined to the Father and the Son in the sacrament of baptism. Matthew 28:19 For David says of Him: And take not Your Holy Spirit from me. And in another place he said of Him: Whither shall I go from Your Spirit?

56. That you may know that the Spirit of God is the same as the Holy Spirit, as we read also in the Apostle: No one speaking in the Spirit of God says Anathema to Jesus and no one can say, Lord Jesus, but in the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:3 the Apostle calls Him the Spirit of God. He called Him also the Spirit of Christ, as you read: But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you. Romans 8:9 And farther on: But if the Spirit of Him Who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you. Romans 8:11 The same is, then, the Spirit of God, Who is the Spirit of Christ.

...

73. And with good cause did the Son of God say: Go and baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 not disdaining association with the Holy Spirit. Why, then, do some take it ill that He Whom the Lord disdained not in the sacrament of baptism, should be joined in our devotion with the Father and the Son?

...

132. Who, then, would dare to deny the oneness of Name, when he sees the oneness of the working. But why should I maintain the unity of the Name by arguments, when there is the plain testimony of the Divine Voice that the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one? For it is written: Go, baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 He said, in the Name, not in the Names. So, then, the Name of the Father is not one, that of the Son another, and that of the Holy Spirit another, for God is one; the Names are not more than one, for there are not two Gods, or three Gods.

...

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34021.htm

Nice try, but that was not the case.

1 Corinthians 1:10-19 King James Version (KJV)
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1 Corinthians 1:10-19 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
Stop Arguing With Each Other
10 Brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, I beg all of you to agree with each other. You should not be divided into different groups. Be completely joined together again with the same kind of thinking and the same purpose.

11 My brothers and sisters, some members of Chloe’s family told me that there are arguments among you. 12 This is what I mean: One of you says, “I follow Paul,” and someone else says, “I follow Apollos.” Another says, “I follow Peter,”[a] and someone else says, “I follow Christ.” 13 Christ cannot be divided into different groups. It wasn’t Paul who died on the cross for you, was it? Were you baptized in Paul’s name? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius. 15 I am thankful because now no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I also baptized the family of Stephanas, but I don’t remember that I myself baptized any others.) 17 Christ did not give me the work of baptizing people. He gave me the work of telling the Good News. But he sent me to tell the Good News without using clever speech, which would take away the power that is in the cross of Christ.

I did not personally use that term. My post you refer to has a list of the historical encyclopedias that address the fact that all water baptisms were administered in the name of the Lord Jesus prior to 325 a.d. The forerunners of the official Roman Catholic Church began insisting the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost replace the singular name of Jesus during baptisms. Many Protestant churches have no clue they are using a man-made tradition.

I believe the encyclopedia reference is from a Catholic encyclopedia. I think the Roman Catholic Church refers to him in that way.

When the bible contradicts the historical record of church fathers than you can bet the bible is correct.

True, there is no scripture wherein the Apostle Peter is referred to as prince, or prince of the Apostles. There is a church that calls itself,
St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles Church.


There is also at least one Catholic resource that shares 13 reasons why they believe Peter was prince of the Apostles.

Again, these are a person(s) view of what the scripture means.

The ultimate authority for God's concepts is found in His Word. Other publications just express an individual's beliefs. Again, Jesus stated that everyone is going to be judged exclusively by the actual Word of God.