R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh. Gotcha. Okay, here’s the answer:
“In the name of Jesus” is a type - not a formula. More on that in a moment.
If a police officer shouts to a fleeing bank robber, “Stop in the name of the law!”, is he really only specifying the authority of one thing, "the law’?
Or is it really the authority of
- the specific code of law written by politicians,
- the police department who enforce the law,
- the entire criminal justice system
Catholics have been baptizing using the Trinitarian formula from the earliest days. There is a document of early Christian practices from about 50 AD called the DIDACHE (pronounced did-a-kay) that details how the early Christians baptized:
“In regard to baptism - baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm.”
The Didache is not inspired scripture, but it is a key piece of historical evidence about what the Church thought and did in the earliest days.
So why does this verse in Acts say we should be baptizing in Jesus’ name and not in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? It is made to offer a distinction from other baptisms that were occurring during the earliest days of Christianity. There were the baptisms done by followers of John the Baptist, baptisms done in Jewish liturgies, and baptisms done in pagan rituals. Here’s a verse speaking of “John’s Baptism”:
Acts 19:3
So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.
Paul specifically asks what type of baptism they had received. They had received “John’s Baptism”; they had not received the baptism of Jesus.
By proclaiming baptisms be done “in the name of Jesus Christ”, the inspired author of Acts was merely attempting to disassociate ourselves from the baptisms done by other sects. It was not an instruction on how to baptize.