As a quick note, you should never listen to protestants where Doctrine / Biblical understanding is concerned. They pick and chose verses to fit what they want whereas Catholics look at the whole and seek the Truth.Did Iraneus who I believe was a disciple of Polycarp make clear that all that were baptized were baptized in the name of the father son and holyspirit? I am at a apologetic wall here. I have pentecostals telling me to ignore matt and go by Act 2:38 where it says that they baptized in the name of Jesus. What’s the answer here. I know what’s right but I need evidence to apologetically explain this acts 2:38.
So then some were being baptized “In the name of John”. Baptism of repentence? “In the name of…” seems to be the confusing translation here.In Acts 2:38, Peter is differentiating between the baptism that Jesus gave to the Apostles (in Matthew 28:19) and other baptisms that were taking place at the time (e.g. John’s baptism of repentance), as we know from Acts 18 (Apollos had received John’s baptism) and 19 (other disciples of John).
The snarky side of me might ask why, if they so insist that Peter had the authority to change the formula of baptism, why they have separated themselves from the authority they so clearly believe in.
I think that Luke did not stipulate that John’s baptism was “in the name of John.” The preposition “in the name of” stipulates an authority. John did not claim a particular authority for the baptism that bears his name. It was most similar to what we have in Confession, actually, as John’s followers would baptize themselves again every time they felt they had sinned. That is why it was called a baptism of repentance.So then some were being baptized “In the name of John”. Baptism of repentence? “In the name of…” seems to be the confusing translation here.
So what did he mean when he said “…In the name of Jesus”?I think that Luke did not stipulate that John’s baptism was “in the name of John.” The preposition “in the name of” stipulates an authority. John did not claim a particular authority for the baptism that bears his name. It was most similar to what we have in Confession, actually, as John’s followers would baptize themselves again every time they felt they had sinned. That is why it was called a baptism of repentance.
Jesus does have a specific authority in ordering his disciples to baptize, but He specifically instructed them to use the Triune formula whenever they did.
Well first THEY should tell you why you ought to ignore Matthew in the first place? i mean you must give one HUGE reason to just ignore a gospel passage, which I think takes precedence on Acts.Did Iraneus who I believe was a disciple of Polycarp make clear that all that were baptized were baptized in the name of the father son and holyspirit? I am at a apologetic wall here. I have pentecostals telling me to ignore matt and go by Act 2:38 where it says that they baptized in the name of Jesus. What’s the answer here. I know what’s right but I need evidence to apologetically explain this acts 2:38.
This is their thinking. Jesus is one and is the father,son,and holy spirit. (I don’t know if they’re understanding the full implications of this or not) And so if you baptize in the “Name of Jesus” your fulfilling somehow the Matt 28:19 authority. These people are really on their own. No teachings except from people who know nothing. My RCIA teacher said I would have to be baptized in the trinitarian formula which I did not mind Because as a kid I was baptized in this odd way. She also told me some baptized “In the name of God” and that doesn’t work. They actually believe the Acts 2:38 was present since the beginning.Well first THEY should tell you why you ought to ignore Matthew in the first place? i mean you must give one HUGE reason to just ignore a gospel passage, which I think takes precedence on Acts.
If you read Acts according to Matthew it is not in contraddiction. Simply by saying ‘in the name of Christ’ he does not exclude at all the Trinitarian formula, but asserts to get baptyzed to become a follower of Christ.
The Trinitarian-style baptysm was present since the beginning… MOST PROTESTANTS, not to mention Catholics and Ortthodox follow the Trinitarian Baptysm and a non-Trinitarian baptysm is actually considered INVALID by most Christians.
THey also believe contrary to historical fact that NOONE died as much for the KJV as anyone LOL. There’s no other bible but it. And I can think of many other bibles. There’s no talking to them. They’re irational.This is their thinking. Jesus is one and is the father,son,and holy spirit. (I don’t know if they’re understanding the full implications of this or not) And so if you baptize in the “Name of Jesus” your fulfilling somehow the Matt 28:19 authority. These people are really on their own. No teachings except from people who know nothing. My RCIA teacher said I would have to be baptized in the trinitarian formula which I did not mind Because as a kid I was baptized in this odd way. She also told me some baptized “In the name of God” and that doesn’t work. They actually believe the Acts 2:38 was present since the beginning.
That is a reference to the authority which Jesus left in the care of the Apostles (in Matthew).So what did he mean when he said “…In the name of Jesus”?
It indeed seemed you were referencing Oneness Pentecostals. This is a Modalist view. The Church has been combating this heresy in various forms at least since the third century.This is their thinking. Jesus is one and is the father,son,and holy spirit. (I don’t know if they’re understanding the full implications of this or not) And so if you baptize in the “Name of Jesus” your fulfilling somehow the Matt 28:19 authority. These people are really on their own. No teachings except from people who know nothing. My RCIA teacher said I would have to be baptized in the trinitarian formula which I did not mind Because as a kid I was baptized in this odd way. She also told me some baptized “In the name of God” and that doesn’t work. They actually believe the Acts 2:38 was present since the beginning.
I have been in the church for several years too now. I just went ahead and was rebaptized at per matt 28:19. This was done by pouring three times. I guess it is too acceptable in the Roman church to be immersed but I don’t know of anyone that does that.It indeed seemed you were referencing Oneness Pentecostals. This is a Modalist view. The Church has been combating this heresy in various forms at least since the third century.
It is possible that your baptism would be conditional. A conditional baptism recognizes there is a chance that a valid baptism previously occurred but there remains a serious concern about validity. The formula for a conditional baptism is approximately, “If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
You should talk to your pastor about the particulars for your case. (I write this assuming you are still in RCIA. If you have already been received into the Church there is no further need to worry about it.)
Your RCIA instructor is correct that the overly generic baptism “in the name of God” would not be considered valid. Even a “trinitarian” formula that uses alternate titles of the Divine Persons (e.g. “in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier”) is not valid.