B
billcu1
Guest
I know some protestants that argue that Paul was giving the true formula for baptisim in Acts 2:38. Which is very different than Mat. 28:19 which is the real formula. What was being said in acts 2:38?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Ad_Orientem
Guest
From the Catechism of Trent:
If at any time the Apostles baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only, we can be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to render their preaching more illustrious by the name of Jesus Christ, and to proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite power. If, however, we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that such a form omits nothing which the Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for he who mentions Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father, by whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom, He was anointed.
And yet, the use of this form by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if we accept the opinions of Ambrose and Basil, holy Fathers eminent for sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, as distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct names of the Three Persons. Paul also, in his Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when he says: As many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ, meaning that they were baptised in the faith of Christ, but with no other form than that which the same Saviour our Lord had commanded to be observed.
If at any time the Apostles baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only, we can be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to render their preaching more illustrious by the name of Jesus Christ, and to proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite power. If, however, we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that such a form omits nothing which the Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for he who mentions Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father, by whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom, He was anointed.
And yet, the use of this form by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if we accept the opinions of Ambrose and Basil, holy Fathers eminent for sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, as distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct names of the Three Persons. Paul also, in his Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when he says: As many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ, meaning that they were baptised in the faith of Christ, but with no other form than that which the same Saviour our Lord had commanded to be observed.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
It’s a paraphrase.I know some protestants that argue that Paul was giving the true formula for baptisim in Acts 2:38. Which is very different than Mat. 28:19 which is the real formula. What was being said in acts 2:38?
B
bzkoss236
Guest
My argument would be, why would you take Paul’s word over Jesus? Or if they claim it doesn’t matter which they use, then why not just use the one Jesus said?
A
Agape_Thom
Guest
Acts 2:28
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life;
thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.’
It is Peter speaking here, not Paul. He is quoting King David. What does this have to do with baptism?
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life;
thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.’
It is Peter speaking here, not Paul. He is quoting King David. What does this have to do with baptism?
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Acts 2:38, not Acts 2:28.Acts 2:28
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life;
thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.’
It is Peter speaking here, not Paul. He is quoting King David. What does this have to do with baptism?
T
Texsain
Guest
He referenced 2:38, not 2:28. And you’re right, it is Peter, not Paul.Acts 2:28
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life;
thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.’
It is Peter speaking here, not Paul. He is quoting King David. What does this have to do with baptism?
Regarding an earlier statement “Take Jesus’ word over Paul’s”, we should not pit Peter (or Paul) against Christ. Furthermore, that line of reasoning admits that Peter was giving a formula, which he wasn’t.
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:38[/BIBLEDRB]
When I read this, I here him saying something along the lines of “For the love of God, repent and be baptized!” or “For Christ’s sake…!” Imagine some of the things people say when they swear (eg. “For the love of God, hurry up!”) but imagine Peter saying it piously, that is, truly for the love of God, or “in the name of Jesus Christ.”
A
Agape_Thom
Guest
OOPS! Sorry! Old eyes! But it is Peter, not Paul.
B
babs57
Guest
Catholic Study Bible says, "…In the name of Jesus:not a complete baptismal formula like the trinitarian formula in Mt 28:19, but a thematic expression used in several ways in Acts.
(1) Calling on the name of Christ in baptism (22:6) is linked with calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation in the earlier quotation from Joel (2:28-32)
(2) The name distinguishes the baptism of Jesus from the baptism of John (1:5; 19:2-5).
(3) The name of Jesus is also invoked to work miracles and exorcisms (3:3; 4:30; 9:34; 16:18).
(1) Calling on the name of Christ in baptism (22:6) is linked with calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation in the earlier quotation from Joel (2:28-32)
(2) The name distinguishes the baptism of Jesus from the baptism of John (1:5; 19:2-5).
(3) The name of Jesus is also invoked to work miracles and exorcisms (3:3; 4:30; 9:34; 16:18).
B
babs57
Guest
That is…“The Ignatious Catholic Study Bible”. Sorry.Catholic Study Bible says, "…In the name of Jesus:not a complete baptismal formula like the trinitarian formula in Mt 28:19, but a thematic expression used in several ways in Acts.
(1) Calling on the name of Christ in baptism (22:6) is linked with calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation in the earlier quotation from Joel (2:28-32)
(2) The name distinguishes the baptism of Jesus from the baptism of John (1:5; 19:2-5).
(3) The name of Jesus is also invoked to work miracles and exorcisms (3:3; 4:30; 9:34; 16:18).
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
The best refutation is Acts 19:1-5.
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
We see that Paul expected they would have heard the name of the Holy Spirit simply by merit of being baptized in Jesus’ name, implying that mentioning the Holy Spirit was part of the baptismal formula. Nevertheless, it then says that Paul baptized them “in the name of the Lord Jesus” without mentioning Father or Holy Spirit. Therefore, it must be that “baptizing in the name of Jesus” as far as Acts is concerned does not mean that Jesus’ command to the apostles in Matthew 28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The argument could be made in context that baptizing in the name of Jesus does not preclude mention of the Holy Spirit or the Father because Christ says to baptize in “the name” of the three Persons and not “the names” so there is no inconsistency in language.
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
We see that Paul expected they would have heard the name of the Holy Spirit simply by merit of being baptized in Jesus’ name, implying that mentioning the Holy Spirit was part of the baptismal formula. Nevertheless, it then says that Paul baptized them “in the name of the Lord Jesus” without mentioning Father or Holy Spirit. Therefore, it must be that “baptizing in the name of Jesus” as far as Acts is concerned does not mean that Jesus’ command to the apostles in Matthew 28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The argument could be made in context that baptizing in the name of Jesus does not preclude mention of the Holy Spirit or the Father because Christ says to baptize in “the name” of the three Persons and not “the names” so there is no inconsistency in language.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.