O
Omyo12
Guest
…the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?
…Jesus Christ?
or
…Jesus Christ?
- Status
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
There could possibly be a clue in your siggy Omyo 12 - “unity in diversity”.
The “unity” of the two might be found in the fact that we say in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…as opposed to in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Thus either way, we are saying in the name of God.
If forced to choose,I would personally go with Christ’s own reccomendation rather than St. Paul’s.
You can have a look into the** Book of Roman Ritual I** here , it’s great for gleaning the meaning of the sacraments:
ewtn.com/library/PRAYER/ROMAN1.TXT
St. Pauls texts are used in the Baptismal rite but here are understood more as baptism into “union” with Christ and they confirm that He is the way :
“Have you forgotten that when we were baptized into union with Jesus
Christ we were baptized into His death? By baptism we were buried with
Him, and lay dead, in order that, as Christ was raised from the dead in
the splendor of the Father, so also we might set our feet upon the new
path of life” (Rom 6.3-4).
“Baptized into union with Him, you have all put on Christ as a garment”
(Gal 3.27).
“For in baptism you were buried with Him, in baptism also you were
raised to life with Him” (Col 2.12).}
All three forms, the pouring, the immersion and the conditional form, say we baptize/are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
time) and of the Son, + (pouring a second time) and of the Holy +
Spirit (pouring a third time).
the Holy + Spirit.
and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit.
The anointing with Chrism also focuses on Christ, but not without mention of the Father and the Holy Spirit
Anointing With Chrism
{To show further that baptism identifies the Christian with Christ, the
newly baptized is now anointed with the holy oil of chrism. According
to long-standing tradition priests and kings are anointed with oil.
Christ our High Priest and King of kings received a supernatural
anointing from His heavenly Father. So also the child, newly made a
Christian, is given the priestly anointing, because through baptism he
shares in the priesthood of Christ; and the anointing is done on the
crown of the head, because he shares likewise in the kingship of
Christ. Another reason for the anointing is that baptism imprints on
the soul an indelible character, marking one with the sign of
membership in the Church and designating the right to participate in
her worship.}
Priest: Peace be with you.
All: And also with you.
The priest wipes his thumb and the place anointed with cotton…
That is the prescribed formula used today.
The “unity” of the two might be found in the fact that we say in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…as opposed to in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Thus either way, we are saying in the name of God.
If forced to choose,I would personally go with Christ’s own reccomendation rather than St. Paul’s.
You can have a look into the** Book of Roman Ritual I** here , it’s great for gleaning the meaning of the sacraments:
ewtn.com/library/PRAYER/ROMAN1.TXT
St. Pauls texts are used in the Baptismal rite but here are understood more as baptism into “union” with Christ and they confirm that He is the way :
“Have you forgotten that when we were baptized into union with Jesus
Christ we were baptized into His death? By baptism we were buried with
Him, and lay dead, in order that, as Christ was raised from the dead in
the splendor of the Father, so also we might set our feet upon the new
path of life” (Rom 6.3-4).
“Baptized into union with Him, you have all put on Christ as a garment”
(Gal 3.27).
“For in baptism you were buried with Him, in baptism also you were
raised to life with Him” (Col 2.12).}
All three forms, the pouring, the immersion and the conditional form, say we baptize/are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
- As the godfather or godmother (or both if two sponsors are used)
holds the child, the priest takes water from the font with a ladle,
pours it three times in the form of a cross on the head of the child,
and while pouring pronounces only once distinctly and attentively the
words:
time) and of the Son, + (pouring a second time) and of the Holy +
Spirit (pouring a third time).
- But where it is the custom to baptize by immersion, the priest
takes the child, and handling it carefully so that it will not be
injured be baptizes with a threefold immersion, pronouncing the words
only once:
the Holy + Spirit.
- Forthwith the godfather or godmother (or both of them together if
there are two) lifts the child from the holy font, receiving it from
the priest. - If there is doubt whether the child has already been baptized, the
following form is used:
and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit.
The anointing with Chrism also focuses on Christ, but not without mention of the Father and the Holy Spirit
Anointing With Chrism
{To show further that baptism identifies the Christian with Christ, the
newly baptized is now anointed with the holy oil of chrism. According
to long-standing tradition priests and kings are anointed with oil.
Christ our High Priest and King of kings received a supernatural
anointing from His heavenly Father. So also the child, newly made a
Christian, is given the priestly anointing, because through baptism he
shares in the priesthood of Christ; and the anointing is done on the
crown of the head, because he shares likewise in the kingship of
Christ. Another reason for the anointing is that baptism imprints on
the soul an indelible character, marking one with the sign of
membership in the Church and designating the right to participate in
her worship.}
- The priest dips his thumb in holy chrism, and in the form of a
cross anoints the child (each one) on the crown of the head, saying:
The almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, has caused you to be
born over again of water and the Holy Spirit and pardoned you all your
sins. May He now anoint + you with the chrism that sanctifies in Christ
Jesus our Lord, and bring you to everlasting life.
Priest: Peace be with you.
All: And also with you.
The priest wipes his thumb and the place anointed with cotton…
That is the prescribed formula used today.
O
Omyo12
Guest
Thanks for your reply NeedImprovement however, I don’t really see an answer.
I was asked this by a Oneness Pentecostal and he said that he baptizes in the name of Jesus because that’s how the apostles supposedly baptized (hence the quotes from Acts)
He said what Jesus said Matthew 28:19 is to be taken as Christ telling them that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is Jesus (since he believes God is one person)
Now, I take the the quotes from Acts as showing Christ’s authority.
As you quoted St. Paul:
However, is there was any Scriptural reference to show that Matthew 28:19 is the actual spoke formula?
I was asked this by a Oneness Pentecostal and he said that he baptizes in the name of Jesus because that’s how the apostles supposedly baptized (hence the quotes from Acts)
He said what Jesus said Matthew 28:19 is to be taken as Christ telling them that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is Jesus (since he believes God is one person)
Now, I take the the quotes from Acts as showing Christ’s authority.
As you quoted St. Paul:
It is through Christ that we are saved.
However, is there was any Scriptural reference to show that Matthew 28:19 is the actual spoke formula?
K
kctigerhawk
Guest
It might be helpful to point out that the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky.
It was born out of a Christian community. That community baptized using the trinitarian formula.
ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/DIDACHE.TXT
The Bible provides fairly clear instructions in Matthew 28:19 straight from the mouth of Jesus that concurs with this.
Are there some verses that suggest his point of view? Yes. However, by what authority does he claim that his verses trump Matthew 28:19?
And there are no scripture references to prove any of those are the “actual spoke formula”.
To what sources can he point?
When it comes down to it we are left with a choice between two traditions.
Oneness Pentecostal’s have less than one hundred years of man made tradition based on the error of Sola Scriptura. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostal) Compare that to nearly two thousand years of Sacred Tradition that can be traced back in a direct line to Jesus.
I suggest he choose wisely.
It was born out of a Christian community. That community baptized using the trinitarian formula.
ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/DIDACHE.TXT
The Bible provides fairly clear instructions in Matthew 28:19 straight from the mouth of Jesus that concurs with this.
Are there some verses that suggest his point of view? Yes. However, by what authority does he claim that his verses trump Matthew 28:19?
And there are no scripture references to prove any of those are the “actual spoke formula”.
To what sources can he point?
When it comes down to it we are left with a choice between two traditions.
Oneness Pentecostal’s have less than one hundred years of man made tradition based on the error of Sola Scriptura. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostal) Compare that to nearly two thousand years of Sacred Tradition that can be traced back in a direct line to Jesus.
I suggest he choose wisely.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Thanks for clarifying Omyo12. The question takes on a different complexion with that additional information. The original post appeared more poll oriented to me, ie:
In the name of Jesus, or
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
There are some non Catholic arguments claiming our Lord never said these words of Matt. 28: 19-20 to his disciples:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
I’ve never found the arguments to be too convincing.
That particular question you originally posted is treated in depth at this linked page:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Baptism
If one scrolls about a third of the way down the page (under the heading: 2 Form), one finds all kinds of related information, including the following excerpts (bolds are mine):
…In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church. Tertullian tells us (De Bapt., xiii): “The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (De Myst., IV) declares: “Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins.” St. Cyprian (Ad Jubaian.), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Princ., i, ii), St. Athanasius (Or. iv, Contr. Ar.), St. Augustine (De Bapt., vi, 25).
…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, xix) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts, x, 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, viii) “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, ii). 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, xix) 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.
God bless.
In the name of Jesus, or
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
There are some non Catholic arguments claiming our Lord never said these words of Matt. 28: 19-20 to his disciples:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
I’ve never found the arguments to be too convincing.
That particular question you originally posted is treated in depth at this linked page:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Baptism
If one scrolls about a third of the way down the page (under the heading: 2 Form), one finds all kinds of related information, including the following excerpts (bolds are mine):
…In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church. Tertullian tells us (De Bapt., xiii): “The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (De Myst., IV) declares: “Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins.” St. Cyprian (Ad Jubaian.), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Princ., i, ii), St. Athanasius (Or. iv, Contr. Ar.), St. Augustine (De Bapt., vi, 25).
…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, xix) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts, x, 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, viii) “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, ii). 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, xix) 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.
God bless.
A
anjoh66
Guest
It seems like it is not valid baptisms they are doing then and will never be accepted by the church.
It is very dangerous with those people interpreting the bible anyway they want.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
To baptize in the Name of Jesus (as distinct from John’s baptism) is to baptize as He Himself commanded: in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Remember that those people mentioned in Acts who had not even HEARD that there was a Holy Spirit would at least have heard had they received proper Christian baptism.
Remember that those people mentioned in Acts who had not even HEARD that there was a Holy Spirit would at least have heard had they received proper Christian baptism.
po18guy
Well-known member
Right you are. Baptism is not mentioned in the Old Testamant, since its advent was to “make His paths straight”, referring to the arrival of Jesus’ ministry. There are numerous mentions of John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance in the New Testament. It is recorded that “the whole of the Judean countryside and all people form Jerusalem” (Mark 1:5) went out and were baptized by John. The exception was the Pharisees, who rejected God’s plan (Luke 7:30). Thus, since it was an entirely new concept, the only baptism known of was that of John. Obviously, this was much talked about.
Then, Jesus came and sanctified the waters by submitting to John’s baptism. After that, His Apostles began baptizing as per Christ’s instruction. This constituted an entirely new baptism, and undoubtedly, some confusion existed. Word of it spread and all who came to believe in Jesus were baptized by the Apostles. However, many were not in the area at the time, or did not believe, and thus were not baptized with the baptism of Jesus, but only that of John. As late as during Paul’s journeys, many did not know the “baptism of Jesus” and were aware only of the “baptism of John” (Acts 18:25).
Thus, the two baptisms were differentiated from one another by the name of John and Jesus. However, Jesus clearly commanded the Apostles to baptize not in only His name, but also that of the Father and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The “oneness” faith communities have rejcted baptism as Christ commanded it, have rejected the baptism of the early Church, and have completely misinterpreted Jesus’ command. Thay are not validly baptized.
- Status