Trinitarian Baptism or could be just Jesus alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
I have a question. In Act 19:5 it says, “On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Would this mean that baptism under simply Jesus would be Valid or was this a over simplifacation (SP?)? Could someone please explain this too me? Thanks and God bless.
 
If ya need baptised at all. Did the thief on the cross next to Jesus have time to get baptized. He Believed, and wanted to come to the Lord.

emp
 
The Bible says to baptise in the name of the father, and of the son and of the holy spirit.
 
Montie Claunch:
I have a question. In Act 19:5 it says, “On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Would this mean that baptism under simply Jesus would be Valid or was this a over simplifacation (SP?)? Could someone please explain this too me? Thanks and God bless.
Hi Monte. Basically it shows the distinction between Jewish rites and the new Christian baptism, for example Paul with the disciples of John the Baptist. This also occurs in acts 2:38. However we know that Christ instructed the apostles on how to baptize when He commands them to go forth and baptize all nations "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We know the apostles would never go against the Lords command; it is a form of brevity to distinguish the Christian and Jewish rites. It identifies the Christian rite, but doesn’t show the actual rite being performed, which would be the trinitarian formual Christ instructed.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
“Where was John’s baptism from? Was it from heavenly or human orgin?” Matthew 21:25 Was Jesus’s baptism valid?–nicolo
 
nico1089 said:
“Where was John’s baptism from? Was it from heavenly or human orgin?” Matthew 21:25 Was Jesus’s baptism valid?–nicolo

Did Jesus need to repent from something?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Jesus did not need to repent anything. The original question just made me curious. It seems that Jesus accepted John’s baptism as valid, and i would think that John baptized in God’s name, he may have said the Father. He understood that Jesus could have baptized him, so i would think that baptizing in the name of Jesus would be valid, as Jesus is also the Father and Holy Spirit. It seems to me that baptisim in any part of the Trinity would be baptism in the whole.–nicolo
 
40.png
nico1089:
Jesus did not need to repent anything. The original question just made me curious. It seems that Jesus accepted John’s baptism as valid, and i would think that John baptized in God’s name, he may have said the Father. He understood that Jesus could have baptized him, so i would think that baptizing in the name of Jesus would be valid, as Jesus is also the Father and Holy Spirit. It seems to me that baptisim in any part of the Trinity would be baptism in the whole.–nicolo
Why was Christ baptized by John?

Who is present at Christs baptism?

Is there a difference between Johns baptism and the christian baptism that Christ institutes?
It seems to me that baptisim in any part of the Trinity would be baptism in the whole.
Except that Christ specifically said “19: 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,”

We also know from the Didache that the baptismal formula hasn’t changed sinse apostolic times. Basically it comes down to keeping Christs commands, he commanded it, the church does it. It is also a profession of faith in the trinity specifically. Baptism is a real grace, not a washing away of dirt.

In saying just Jesus is the catechumen actually professing faith in the Father and Holy Spirit or possibly just in Jesus? Or in just the Holy Spirit? The trinitarian formula leaves no room for speculation. No matter how we “feel about it”. One is following the command of Christ, the other is letting our own preference be paramount to his command.

15: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

21 Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him."

24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.

The church submits and obeys out of love.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
nico1089:
Jesus did not need to repent anything. The original question just made me curious. It seems that Jesus accepted John’s baptism as valid, and i would think that John baptized in God’s name, he may have said the Father. He understood that Jesus could have baptized him, so i would think that baptizing in the name of Jesus would be valid, as Jesus is also the Father and Holy Spirit. It seems to me that baptisim in any part of the Trinity would be baptism in the whole.–nicolo
No, Jesus is not “also the Father and the Holy Spirit”; the Persons of the Trinity are distinct within the Godhead.

The baptisms that John performed were valid insofar as they were the “mikveh”, a ritualistic bath which was a common “rite” in Jewish worship. However, in the case of the baptism of John, he was applying the mikveh in a particular sense: a sense of conversion TO Judaism. What do I mean by this? Quite simply, when one becomes a Jew (even today, in Orthodox Judaism), one has his head shaved and his fingernails and toenails closely cut - as if one is a baby again; and one is immersed into the “mikveh” (the ritualistic bath) so as to emerge and be “reborn” as a Jew. This is exactly what John was doing as the precursor to the Messiah.

The baptism of John set up only a provisional economy: it is "a baptism of water which is preparatory to the Messianic baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire,” Xavier Leon-Dufour, Dictionary of Biblical Theology. It was an external ritual signifying an effort of conversion of the baptized (much as many Protestant denominations look upon baptism today).

For 2000 years God has asked the people of Israel to keep faith with His Commandments, and for 2000 years the Israelites had failed to do this. Yet, now St. John comes along preaching a baptism of repentance to prepare for the Messiah. Here, what St. John is saying is: “Okay, everybody! Come on back! Become REAL Jews and truly commit yourself to the Jewish Covenant to which you have been unfaithful. THIS is what is mean by the “baptism of John” – a baptism into Judaism, into the Jewish Covenant – in preparation for the Messiah’s coming.

However, Jesus’ Baptism will do something greater. It will be the Baptism into a New Covenant established by Him. It will bring the baptized into Communion with the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity; and it is a Baptism into His Church. Here, we must remember that the Greek work for “Church” (Ekklesia) means “those who are called out” – that is, out of Judaism, out of the old Covenant of law and into the New Covenant of love. Thus the Church will be that remnant of Israel which, along with the Gentiles, will accept Jesus as their Messiah and King.
 
I would like to make a small revision to the original OP’s question. Oneness believers contend that the formula in Acts, that is, being baptized in Jesus’ name (only) was the one the early Church used (they’re basing all of this in Acts). What would then be the answer, aside from Jesus’ commission to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the Didache, that the early Church baptized using the Trinitarian formula? Or, to rephrase that, how would one explain that the baptismal formula in Acts (baptizing in Jesus’ name) is actually baptizing using the Trinitarian formula?
 
40.png
empacae:
If ya need baptised at all. Did the thief on the cross next to Jesus have time to get baptized. He Believed, and wanted to come to the Lord.

emp
And that is the only time heaven was promised to anyone and it was done directly by God Himself. Who are you to deny what Jesus commanded from His Church and to deny that you need to be baptized in order to be saved. When your head stops spinning from those apostate reformist doctrines please let us know.

Ken
 
“In the name of Jesus,” is equivalent to, “in the authority of Jesus.” I never thought I’d say this, but, CARM has it absolutely right on this one-- view their treatment of it here. I recommend not reading beyond that page, though.
 
40.png
kleary:
And that is the only time heaven was promised to anyone and it was done directly by God Himself. Who are you to deny what Jesus commanded from His Church and to deny that you need to be baptized in order to be saved. When your head stops spinning from those apostate reformist doctrines please let us know.

Ken
Did I oppose anything Ken? No. Do I believe in Sola Scriptya, Fide, or OSAS? No. Stop being a sanctimonious self-rightious so-and-so Ken… I know that the thief got a devine invitation to heaven. I believe that my statement started with an IF. I’ve done my five scaraments and am working everyday without end for my salvation. I am nothing but dust held together with water without Jesus Christ. Your presumptions get the better of ya. Thanks for the insults… you can have my other cheek and a pound of my flesh too to boot.

emp
 
40.png
empacae:
Did I oppose anything Ken? No. Do I believe in Sola Scriptya, Fide, or OSAS? No. Stop being a sanctimonious self-rightious so-and-so Ken… I know that the thief got a devine invitation to heaven. I believe that my statement started with an IF. I’ve done my five scaraments and am working everyday without end for my salvation. I am nothing but dust held together with water without Jesus Christ. Your presumptions get the better of ya. Thanks for the insults… you can have my other cheek and a pound of my flesh too to boot.

emp
Take it easy pal. Your statement told me that Baptism is not necessary for salvation and I am sure others felt that way also.

Ken
 
40.png
kleary:
Take it easy pal. Your statement told me that Baptism is not necessary for salvation and I am sure others felt that way also.

Ken
Sorry Ken. Just got a little touchy there when I thought you were saying I was against the Church. I’ve just had the most pleasant experience in the last two months dealing with Baptists. And this word apostasy that came up when refering to me or the church really chaff my britches. Sorry man. Didn’t mean to slam so hard on ya. Hope you can forgive my outburst.

emp

PS
And of course I believe in being baptised in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I just threw what I did out there for the sake of the discussion. It was just an idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top