Did Peter Get It Wrong?

[The_Wizard]

In Matthew 28 : 19, Jesus says “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,…”(NAB) But in Acts 2 : 38, "Peter (said) to them , ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of you sins: …’ ".(NAB) So which is it Father , Son and Holy Spirit or just Jesus Christ (Son)?

 

[MontChevalier]

In Matthew 28 : 19, Jesus says “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,…”(NAB) But in Acts 2 : 38, "Peter (said) to them , ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of you sins: …’ ".(NAB) So which is it Father , Son and Holy Spirit or just Jesus Christ (Son)?

All three, in my opinion.

 

[Stylites]

In Matthew 28 : 19, Jesus says “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,…”(NAB) But in Acts 2 : 38, "Peter (said) to them , ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of you sins: …’ ".(NAB) So which is it Father , Son and Holy Spirit or just Jesus Christ (Son)?

Peter was an Apostle, and the first Pope, and was given the keys to the Kingdom. When setting Church doctrine, by definition he cannot be wrong. He could have said to baptise in the name of Jelly Bellies, and those baptisms would have been just as valid as yours or mine today.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Peter was an Apostle, and the first Pope, and was given the keys to the Kingdom. When setting Church doctrine, by definition he cannot be wrong. He could have said to baptise in the name of Jelly Bellies, and those baptisms would have been just as valid as yours or mine today.

Uhm, no.

Infallibility is the inability to err in teaching truth, not the license to create truth.

Using your example, infallibility means that the teaching of baptism “in the name of Jelly Bellies, and those baptisms would have been just as valid as yours or mine today,” will never come out from the Magisterium of the Church, because it is simply not true.

God love you.

 

[mattkubes]

In Matthew 28 : 19, Jesus says “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,…”(NAB) But in Acts 2 : 38, "Peter (said) to them , ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of you sins: …’ ".(NAB) So which is it Father , Son and Holy Spirit or just Jesus Christ (Son)?

I think he was using that more as a descriptor. You have to remember that these letters were written with an audience in mind, and there’s some context to the way they would have read and understood them. The first example of baptism we see is being done by St John the Baptist - this is probably the type of baptism that people in the area would have been familiar with, but it wasn’t efficacious for the remission of original sin. So if Peter had said “make sure you go and get baptized,” you can see where there may have been some confusion.

St Peter is saying that we need to receive Jesus’ baptism in order to have our sins forgiven. I’m not sure what the original idiom is, but remember that “in the name of” can also just be used to mean “by the authority of.” As in, “stop in the name of the law.”

But it also comes down to this: we can’t pit St Matthew’s Gospel and Acts against one another, and sticking with the Trinitarian formula, spoken by the lips of our Lord Himself, is probably a safe bet

 

[Timonator348]

I think he was using that more as a descriptor. You have to remember that these letters were written with an audience in mind, and there’s some context to the way they would have read and understood them. The first example of baptism we see is being done by St John the Baptist - this is probably the type of baptism that people in the area would have been familiar with, but it wasn’t efficacious for the remission of original sin. So if Peter had said “make sure you go and get baptized,” you can see where there may have been some confusion.

St Peter is saying that we need to receive Jesus’ baptism in order to have our sins forgiven. I’m not sure what the original idiom is, but remember that “in the name of” can also just be used to mean “by the authority of.” As in, “stop in the name of the law.”

But it also comes down to this: we can’t pit St Matthew’s Gospel and Acts against one another, and sticking with the Trinitarian formula, spoken by the lips of our Lord Himself, is probably a safe bet

This is pretty accurate but I also think that if you believe in the Trinity all three persons cannot be separated. Wherever the Father is the Son and Holy Spirit must also be. Therefore I think it is twofold to show being baptized into Jesus Christ’s body but the trinitarian formula was used for the actual act of baptism.

 

[William_Pitts]

The context, the context, I say the context. Peter was talking to the Jews who had failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. He had put the fear of God in them. They may have helped crucify Christ. Now he is telling them to escape wrath they must Repent, be Baptized
and become subject to Jesus Christ.

Her is what the Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scriptures says about Acts 2:38:

‘Repent’. The Baptist and our Lord had begun thus, Mat_3:2; Mat_4:17, and the Apostles had been told to continue, Luk_24:47. To Semites the name is the person. ‘Baptism in the name’ means ‘to be, by the fact of baptism, consecrated, dedicated, subjected to someone’, F. Prat, op cit, II (1945) 466; § 650a-o. Jesus has been shown to be the Messias. To join his community, to belong to him, his baptism must be received. Thus 'baptism in the name of Jesus’ is not a liturgical formula, but distinguishes Christian baptism from e.g. that of John the Baptist, 19:5, or that given to proselytes. Mat_28:19 and St Paul’s question in 19:3 show that knowledge of the Holy Trinity was necessary, and each Person is mentioned here in 38-39. Forgiveness of sins, a divine prerogative, comes through Jesus. The gift of the Holy Spirit included the divine Indwelling, Sanctifying Grace and Confirmation

 

[po18guy]

The context, the context, I say the context. Peter was talking to the Jews who had failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. He had put the fear of God in them. They may have helped crucify Christ. Now he is telling them to escape wrath they must Repent, be Baptized
and become subject to Jesus Christ.

Her is what the Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scriptures says about Acts 2:38:

‘Repent’. The Baptist and our Lord had begun thus, Mat_3:2; Mat_4:17, and the Apostles had been told to continue, Luk_24:47. To Semites the name is the person. ‘Baptism in the name’ means ‘to be, by the fact of baptism, consecrated, dedicated, subjected to someone’, F. Prat, op cit, II (1945) 466; § 650a-o. Jesus has been shown to be the Messias. To join his community, to belong to him, his baptism must be received. Thus 'baptism in the name of Jesus’ is not a liturgical formula, but distinguishes Christian baptism from e.g. that of John the Baptist, 19:5, or that given to proselytes. Mat_28:19 and St Paul’s question in 19:3 show that knowledge of the Holy Trinity was necessary, and each Person is mentioned here in 38-39. Forgiveness of sins, a divine prerogative, comes through Jesus. The gift of the Holy Spirit included the divine Indwelling, Sanctifying Grace and Confirmation

Correct. Today, we often overlook the fact that there were two baptisms in those days, both initiated close in time to one another. We read that “All of Judea” (Mark 1:5) was going to John for his baptism. John himself spoke of “one among you, whom you do not know” (John 1:26), which indicates that John and his baptism were well established. Christ’s baptism was spoken of and identified with Jesus to distinguish it from the more well-known baptism of John. John’s baptism was still apparently well-known several years into the Christian era, even though John was long dead by that time (Acts 19:3-4).

 

[NeedImprovement]

There’s a good article on this subject right here at CAF entitled Trinitarian Baptism which corresponds quite accurately to this question.

It quotes the early Church Fathers who "*agreed… Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ " *

As to the question raised by the OP, the most pertinent section of the article replies (blue bolds and smiley mine):

*" ‘Jesus Only’ Pentecostals also argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized “in the name of Jesus,” but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say “Lord Jesus,” other say “Jesus Christ”), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. **These four descriptions are not to be considered - :tsktsk: - as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command *of the Lord Jesus Christ to: “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). "

So, we may rightly ask : Then if “in the name of Jesus”,“Lord Jesus” and “Jesus Christ” are not Baptismal formulas, but rather descriptions, what are they describing ?

One could say they are a reference to by Whose authority precisely we baptize. The verse of scripture which directly precedes the wording of the baptismal formula bears this out. Here are the two verses in context of each other- the way they appear in the bible :

**Matt 28: 18-19 **

Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

Final note: the linked article also bears the following-

both the

*"NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 *

(and)

*IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004" *