Should baptism be in the name of Jesus or Trinity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCCDefender
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RCCDefender

Guest
I had a reader of my blog comment that Catholics changed baptism. When I asked him to expand on what he meant here was how he responded:
In 234 a.d. The Roman Catholics changed the baptism from Jesus Name Baptism to “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” baptism. If you read acts 2:38 you will find that it reads to be baptized in “Jesus Name”. If you think about it "the name of the father, son and holy ghost, what is the name? The name is Jesus. I am apostolic and I understand that many catholic priest are weary of this belief. But study out the book of acts. The bible says to search the scriptures and seek out your own salvation. But I will get the name of the Encylopedia that documents the change from “Jesus Name” baptism to “The name of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost” . It is documented, but not spoken about.
Click to expand...
Which I find odd considering Matthew 28:19. Furthermore, does anyone know anything about this date that he speaks of? Thanks.
 
RCCDefender said:
Except for how he got the date of 234 A.D. Does anyone have any info on that?

Oh, and I should say thank you for that link. It was very informative.
Thanks!
Click to expand...
I asked a Penecostal “Jesus Oneness” on this, and he could not cite but say it was in the Catholic material that says we did use “In the Name of Jesus Only once.”

Though I have research over that but no evidence regarding it. As far as I am concerning that was not the case since the ECF have mentioned that valid Baptism can only be done by using, “In the Name of the Father, And of the Son, and Of the Holy Spirit.”

Lastly, Jesus commanded his Apostles and their successors, “Baptize them, In the Name of the Father, And of the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

I think the Penecostals may make up history to justify their useage of “In the Name of Jesus” which is not biblical.
 
RCCDefender said:
Furthermore, does anyone know anything about this date that he speaks of? Thanks.
Click to expand...
The claim about the date is utter garbage. Aside from Jesus’ instructions in Matthew, we have this from this 1st century A.D.
Didache 7:1:
But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water.
Click to expand...
 
This is peculiar to Oneness Pentecostals, also known as Apostolics, Sabellians or “Jesus Only”.

There are Trinitarian Pentecostals that do not subscribe to this belief.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for any documentation concerning the alleged change in the baptismal formula.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
I think the Penecostals may make up history to justify their useage of “In the Name of Jesus” which is not biblical.
Click to expand...
No! Ya think . . . 😉

This is kinda the Dan Rather approach – even if the document is proven false, what it says is true.😃
 
RCCDefender said:
I had a reader of my blog comment that Catholics changed baptism. When I asked him to expand on what he meant here was how he responded:

Which I find odd considering Matthew 28:19. Furthermore, does anyone know anything about this date that he speaks of? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Matthew 28:19–Is that the one which Jesus commands his disciples to baptized in the “Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Ghost)?” Then you need no further proof, if your Protestant friend truly follows the Bible. Tell them to read the Bible before they can claim to follow it.
 
The Didache (which was a kind of early catechism) was written around 70AD to 100AD.

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
 
If Scripture is inerrant, which I believe we all agree that it is, If only one verse in Scripture seems to contradict 5,000 other verses, it becomes necessary to reconcile the 5001 verses, one with the other, rather than ignoring the one verse, which will never go away.

In the particular case of Baptism, Jesus clearly states how it is to be done. Yet, in Acts 2:38, we read Peter saying to be “baptized, every one of you in, in the name of Jesus Christ.”

To my feeble understanding and immature intellect, it seems that one would need to understand what Peter meant. He certainly did not say "in the name of Jesus Christ alone. So, my feebleness and immaturity lead me to ask if “in the name of Jesus Christ” was short hand for “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Sprit.” Because Peter does not qualify ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ with ‘alone’ does not mean that one ought to add ‘alone’ in the light of the Oral Tradition, or Apostolic Teachings.

Certainly the Didache, written, I believe during the Apostolic era, attests to that understanding.
 
I know what you mean RCCDefender. One of my best friends is an Apostolic and he basically quoted me the same thing. I found that in debating this point on baptism it’s not enough to just quote Matthew 28:19. Simply because they (Apostolics) interpret that passage differently. He said that Jesus was speaking in a parable because the name that is used for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is in fact Jesus.

Their teaching isn’t just based on their own interpretation of Scripture; they believe that the Trinity is a man made doctrine that was invented at the Nicaea Council in 325 AD.

My friend said that the early church was trying to “Explain” the God Head and the Trinity is what they came up with. However, the more he tried to explain to me what he thought the Trinity was, the more I realized that his understanding of the Trinity was way off base.

Since most Apostolics generally agree that the early Church used the Jesus Only formula in baptism, I then tried to find proof of this. However, I found NO documents that supported that claim. In fact what I found was that most Jesus Only theology centered around the Azusa Street Revival.

In 1913 a man by the name of John Schaepe claimed to have received a revelation directly from God in that the baptismal command by Peter in Acts 2:38 was in fulfillment of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. This conclusion was accepted by several others and developed further theologically by a minister named Frank J. Ewart. So, in 1913 Oneness Pentecostalism was “revealed” to a handful of individuals, and in 1914 it was first publicly practiced.

That’s just sort of a summary of what I found on Oneness Pentecostalism. Of course there’s way more information out there that should help you in defending the Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top