Was their baptism valid

[RomanRyan1088]

It is my understanding that in order for a baptism to be valid, a trinitarian formula must be used. My question the is, when John the Baptist was baptizing, whose name was he baptizing in? I doubt it would be the trinity, because it had yet not been revealed. Would this make Jesus’ baptism invalid?

 

[pacersFan]

That’s an interesting question, to which I do not know the answer. If you don’t get an answer here, be sure and post it on the “Ask an Apologist” board, as I’m curious to hear their response.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

This is an interesting question, and I don’t have any ‘official’ answer, but here are my thoughts:

John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, which he distinguished from the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire that Jesus would bring. So his baptisms were valid, but not sacramental, just as a marriage may be valid without being sacramental. His baptism of Jesus would therefore be valid.
Another interesting thing to note is that even though John most likely did not baptize Jesus ‘In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", Jesus’ baptism was trinitarian. The Father was present when He said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him.” (The actual text differs depending on translation, I unfortunately do not have a Bible available to me where I am right now.) The Son was obviously present. The Spirit was present in the form of a dove. So although Jesus may not have been baptized with a trinitarian formula, His baptism was a trinitarian baptism.

 

[RomanRyan1088]

pacersFan:

That’s an interesting question, to which I do not know the answer. If you don’t get an answer here, be sure and post it on the “Ask an Apologist” board, as I’m curious to hear their response.

I have posted this question in the AAA forum.

 

[RomanRyan1088]

Grace and Glory:

This is an interesting question, and I don’t have any ‘official’ answer, but here are my thoughts:

John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, which he distinguished from the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire that Jesus would bring. So his baptisms were valid, but not sacramental, just as a marriage may be valid without being sacramental. His baptism of Jesus would therefore be valid.
Another interesting thing to note is that even though John most likely did not baptize Jesus ‘In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", Jesus’ baptism was trinitarian. The Father was present when He said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him.” (The actual text differs depending on translation, I unfortunately do not have a Bible available to me where I am right now.) The Son was obviously present. The Spirit was present in the form of a dove. So although Jesus may not have been baptized with a trinitarian formula, His baptism was a trinitarian baptism.

Quite an interesting observation Grace and Glory. I find that quite intriguing.