What the New Testament doesn’t tell us…

[Gene_C]

Hi all,

Has anyone ever noticed that Jesus said to baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but in the book of Acts we read that people were baptized in or into the Name of the Lord Jesus? And yet, there is no explanation given anywhere else in the New Testament about this difference. Where would we go to find out why? Or are we just left to figure it out for ourselves?

And once we figure that out, which is the proper way to baptize: by immersion; by pouring water; or by sprinkling water. A case can be made for each of these modes in the New Testament Scriptures. Yet it is not spelled out clearly.

And if we baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, do we immerse/pour/sprinkle just once or three times, once for each member of the Trinity? Why isn’t this spelled out clearly?

I believe it’s not spelled out clearly because information such as this was passed down orally and we do have records of the tradition for baptism in the extra-canonical writings (Didache) and the Fathers.

This was the first crack in the wall of “Sola Scriptura” for me.

Do any non-Catholics want to take a crack at this?

Blessings,
Gene C.

 

[PaulDupre]

Sola Scriptura is the reason why Protestant churches can’t agree on how to baptize. My brother’s make-it-up-as-you-go-along church baptizes in the name of Jesus only. They are also currently embroiled in a disagreement about “one-ness” theology, which has split their church down the middle and will probably end up in two or more new non-denominational denominations.
Sheesh,
Paul

 

[buffalo]

Bible Christian Society - lots of free tapes to show you why.

 

[michaelp]

Here are my thoughts:

1. The method is completely non-essential. Why would you think that it is so important? God gives us freedom in alot of areas. That is one of the reasons for the resiliency of the Church. We are created in the image of God and he has great pleasure in giving us the same type of freedom that he has. To quibble over what method to use is to miss the point entirely. What is the point?
2. The basic principle that is expressed in baptism is that we are identifying with Christ, Christ identified with the Father and the Holy Spirit. So if you baptize in the name of Christ, you are baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I prefer to baptize using the phrase "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, just because today, in our cultural context in which we must apply the Scripture, there are those who baptize simply in the name of Christ because they believe He was the Father and the Spirit (Oneness Pentecostals). I don’t want to be misunderstood as being a modalist, so I use the full baptismal formula. There was not this problem (modalism) in the early Church, therefore, it would not have been a problem to baptize only in the name of Christ.
3. The early Church understood that the method is not the important thing. That is why the Didache gives many different options depending on the circumstances. The first option is immersion in cold water, the second is warm, if you do not have warm then pour. This is a nice pastoral admonition. It does not have to be followed by, but it seems reasonable to me.

I have more, but I will let this be. Thanks for asking such a good question and inviting me to give my opinion (and yes, it is an opinion).

Michael

 

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

The method is completely non-essential. Why would you think that it is so important? God gives us freedom in alot of areas. That is one of the reasons for the resiliency of the Church. We are created in the image of God and he has great pleasure in giving us the same type of freedom that he has. To quibble over what method to use is to miss the point entirely. What is the point?

The larger point is that it IS essential to somebody–essential enough that their denomination may split over it. This is where Sola Scriptura/personal interpretation gets you. One side of the pew has one interpretation, the other side has another–if each believer is led by the Holy Spirit and Scripture is clear to all, how can things come to such a pass? Who’s to say whether the subject at hand is essential or not?

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

The larger point is that it IS essential to somebody–essential enough that their denomination may split over it. This is where Sola Scriptura/personal interpretation gets you. One side of the pew has one interpretation, the other side has another–if each believer is led by the Holy Spirit and Scripture is clear to all, how can things come to such a pass? Who’s to say whether the subject at hand is essential or not?

Would you say that there are 30,000 different interpretations on the of the mode of baptism and that this mode is essential? If so, please justfy your response by listing all 30,000 (I use this number because it seems to be popular with you all). Wait, that is too big of a task. I will ask for 50. No 20. No, no 10. What is that. . . . 5. OK, five. (I know, I am not funny, but I think it is funny, but this is just my interpretation )

Give me five different denominations that disagree and say that That there method is the only one correct method of baptism.

Look forward to it!

Michael

 

[ahimsaman72]

Gene C.:

Hi all,

Has anyone ever noticed that Jesus said to baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but in the book of Acts we read that people were baptized in or into the Name of the Lord Jesus? And yet, there is no explanation given anywhere else in the New Testament about this difference. Where would we go to find out why? Or are we just left to figure it out for ourselves?

And once we figure that out, which is the proper way to baptize: by immersion; by pouring water; or by sprinkling water. A case can be made for each of these modes in the New Testament Scriptures. Yet it is not spelled out clearly.

And if we baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, do we immerse/pour/sprinkle just once or three times, once for each member of the Trinity? Why isn’t this spelled out clearly?

I believe it’s not spelled out clearly because information such as this was passed down orally and we do have records of the tradition for baptism in the extra-canonical writings (Didache) and the Fathers.

This was the first crack in the wall of “Sola Scriptura” for me.

Do any non-Catholics want to take a crack at this?

Blessings,
Gene C.

Hello Gene. I want to include a passage from I Corinthians 1:11-17 which really mirrors what you are describing here.

** 11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.**
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15. Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Okay, so notice first that there were contentions about this in Paul’s day. There has always been contentions among believers in many respects. For the Corinthians you had people divided over the disciples and apostles of Christ himself. The same story rages on today.

The important truth to remember is exactly what Paul stated in verse 17. That is: preaching the gospel is the goal we should have, not whether or not you were taught by Paul, Apollos or Peter or whether or not we were sprinkled, dunked or poured with water by them in baptism.

I would love to see verses that imply pouring or sprinkling for baptism .

Peace…

 

[Gene_C]

Michael,

Thanks for the opinion!

I think Fidelis has made a good point. It IS important baptism is included in the Great Commission, Peter’s first sermon and Paul’s letters. And this is a point, a main point, that Protestant denominations divide over. Obviously, there is great disagreement over just what baptism is and how it is performed. That alone should show us that something more is needed to rightly interpret the Scriptures.

By giving your opinion, you have become your own teaching authority. The Catholics look to Rome, Protestants look to themselves or a confession/creed or to the writings of the Reformers or the Evangelical Theological Society or just claim that they have the Holy Spirit in this matter.

Every Christian has some kind of teaching authority in their study of Scripture, wouldn’t you agree? The Scriptures are not clear on the full picture of baptism. You have to bring an outside authority to bear on it.

Blessings,
Gene C.

 

[michaelp]

Gene C.:

Michael,

Thanks for the opinion!

I think Fidelis has made a good point. It IS important baptism is included in the Great Commission, Peter’s first sermon and Paul’s letters. And this is a point, a main point, that Protestant denominations divide over. Obviously, there is great disagreement over just what baptism is and how it is performed. That alone should show us that something more is needed to rightly interpret the Scriptures.

By giving your opinion, you have become your own teaching authority. The Catholics look to Rome, Protestants look to themselves or a confession/creed or to the writings of the Reformers or the Evangelical Theological Society or just claim that they have the Holy Spirit in this matter.

Every Christian has some kind of teaching authority in their study of Scripture, wouldn’t you agree? The Scriptures are not clear on the full picture of baptism. You have to bring an outside authority to bear on it.

Blessings,
Gene C.

But you fail to understand that you have just pushed the problem up a level or two. Now it is not the Scriptures that are interpreted by the individual, but the Church. And from the many disagreements that I see expressed on this forum, I don’t think it is any better.

Besides all of this, the justification for the system (institutionalized Church interprets the Scripture, not the indicidual member of the Church) is pragmatic at best (although I think I have demonstrated that it is not even pragmatic). If this is what Scripture taught, I would have no problem believing it. But there is no justification for it. All that I have seen is question begging arguments like, “the Church is the only interpreter of Scripture because the Church says it is.” This does not help. It is very circular.

Like I said, I would submit to the system if there was any justification, but there is not.

I pray God’s blessings upon you on your journey.

Michael

 

[Fidelis]

michaelp:

Would you say that there are 30,000 different interpretations on the of the mode of baptism and that this mode is essential? If so, please justfy your response by listing all 30,000 (I use this number because it seems to be popular with you all). Wait, that is too big of a task. I will ask for 50. No 20. No, no 10. What is that. . . . 5. OK, five. (I know, I am not funny, but I think it is funny, but this is just my interpretation )

Give me five different denominations that disagree and say that That there method is the only one correct method of baptism.

Look forward to it!

Michael

As I pointed out in another thread, I never said there were 30,000 different Protestant interpretations of baptism, only that there were (arguably) that many different Protestant denominations that had come into being because they divided over interpretation. Multiplication by division, I believe it’s called.

 

[michaelp]

Fidelis:

As I pointed out in another thread, I never said there were 30,000 different Protestant interpretations of baptism, only that there were (arguably) that many different Protestant denominations that had come into being because they divided over interpretation. Multiplication by division, I believe it’s called.

Thanks for the clarification. So no 5 either? I hope that you understand by point now. It is not as divided as everyone likes to say. I just don’t like the misrepresentation. It happens all the time.

Thanks for the update.

Michael

 

[Fidelis]

ahimsaman72:

I would love to see verses that imply pouring or sprinkling for baptism .

In the Book of Acts when the apostle Paul and the jailer in Antioch were baptised “immediately” they were inside houses. Homes of that day did not normally large amounts of water that adults could be baptised in. The implication is that they were baptised some other way, probably by immersion or sprinkling.

Interestingly, the Didache, a first century Christian document that is contemporary with the NT, describes the baptismal rite and notes that, when necessary, it is legit to sprnkle or pour.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Gene C.:

By giving your opinion, you have become your own teaching authority. The Catholics look to Rome, Protestants look to themselves or a confession/creed or to the writings of the Reformers or the Evangelical Theological Society or just claim that they have the Holy Spirit in this matter.

Every Christian has some kind of teaching authority in their study of Scripture, wouldn’t you agree? The Scriptures are not clear on the full picture of baptism. You have to bring an outside authority to bear on it.

Blessings,
Gene C.

Gene,

Rome gives her official opinions which are based on their belief in apostolic succession and authority which they claim are given to them by Peter who was given his by Christ. They claim they only have the right to declare something as valid or invalid, true or untrue. And that all seems to stem from their supposed God-given authority.

Protestants give their opinions which are based on Scriptures and reason. Scriptures are their authority.

When it comes down to it, one chooses the authority of Scripture compiled over thousands of years by many authors breathed out by God Himself or authority supposedly given them by Peter 2000 years ago by Christ.

We all are human and come to conclusions based on evidence presented to us. We all form an opinion based on what we find. We all form a hypothesis, don’t we?

I see time and time again the issue of “opinion”. The Catholic view is that protestants only have opinions but they have real answers - the truthful answers. I assert that all Catholics and protestants have opinions - all of us - popes, bishops, pastors, teachers and laypeople. And of course, we all go around and say - “my opinion is not opinion - it is a fact”. It all seems rather useless.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Fidelis:

In the Book of Acts when the apostle Paul and the jailer in Antioch were baptised “immediately” they were inside houses. Homes of that day did not normally large amounts of water that adults could be baptised in. The implication is that they were baptised some other way, probably by immersion or sprinkling.

Interestingly, the Didache, a first century Christian document that is contemporary with the NT, describes the baptismal rite and notes that, when necessary, it is legit to sprnkle or pour.

That’s fine. There are two things to point out.

First, you assert that immediately means “right now, at this moment in time”. You might be right. But, the odd thing would be that the author (Paul) would be clear when it was done - that it was immediate, but fails to tell how it was done, whether dunk, pour or sprinkle. I would think that when it was done is of no consequence or importance. On the other hand - how it is done would be of upmost importance. You see the reasoning here? The author is sure to tell us it was done immediately (so what?), but doesn’t find the issue of how it was done important.

Second, you interestingly speak of the Didache (outside of canon) and imply that sprinkling or pouring can be done out of necessity.
So, we could easily conclude that dunking is the norm and when *necessary *sprinkling or pouring (because of some odd condition) is acceptable. So, if you believe that sprinkling or pouring is okay *all the time *then you would be going against your own tradition. How odd.

Your doctrine would then be based on 1) the assumption that “immediately” means “right now - no waiting any period of time” taken out of an entire Scriptural passage and 2) that your out of canon evidence explains that there is some variation on how it can be done - with sprinkling and pouring being done (when necessary). I would re-think your assumptions.

Peace…

 

[kepha1]

Give me five different denominations that disagree and say that That there method is the only one correct method of baptism.

Look forward to it!

Michael

1. Lutherans
2. Reformed Church
3. Anglicans
4. Presbyterians
5. Baptist
6. Methodist

Michael, I no longer use the “30,000” denomination figure, since I have been educated by the illustrious Svendsen, who has intelligently pointed out that there are 8,000 Catholic denominations, :whacky: and an equal number of sub-sections of Protestant denominations!!!

Please keep in mind it is not from Catholic sources that quote these outrageous numbers, they all come from Protestant publications, like the World Christian Encyclopedia, and the The Christian Sourcebook. So don’t blame Catholics for quoting the information found in Protestant publications. You’re the ones keeping a score sheet, we just refer to your results.

Face reality. Proliferation of denominations is a monument to the failure of “sola scriptura” and so called “reformism” in general.

It can get quite frustrating when Protestants don’t accept Catholics quoting from Protestant sources. In other words, nothing will do.

Now getting back to your original challenge, please find me any two of the above 6 MAJOR Protestant camps that have the same teaching on baptism.

Look forward to it!

kepha1

 

[YADA]

Ahimsaman,

The Didache is not cannon and was never meant to be cannon. It is an early Christian document that was written sometime between 70 and 120 AD depending on what scholars you would credit. Literally translated it means the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”. Nothing contained in the Didache contradicts the constant teachings, beliefs or practices of the Catholic faith. While our liturgy has developed it has not changed substantually in 2000 years. The Didache is closer to being the earliest catechism and sacramentary ll in one document. It includes the basic Christian teachings on how to live a Christian life, basic instructions for the sacraments like baptism (preparation/instruction along with the how to perform) and the earliest forms of liturgical prayers (those offered at mass, the Lord’s Prayer (Our Father…) and the Eucharistic prayer). Like the Catechism of today, it quotes scripture and offers insights on them.

The Didache is very useful in determining what were the understandings and practices of the early Christian community. An interesting side note is that the Didache contains the Doxology to the Lord’s prayer that is standard in the Protestant translations of the New Testament scriptures. The addition of which is uncertain as to whether it was originally in the earliest manuscripts or was added as an after thought. What I am trying to say is scholars are unsure if the doxology was included in Jesus’ teaching or added. Some early manuscripts contain it, one has it as a margin note and others include it. What is certain is that the early Christians prayed with that addition.

I love to use the Didache for reflection, it helps me feel close to my elders in the Faith. I seek theeir prayerful support in living out my Christian life, the Communion of Saints. Sometimes I wish our Bishops would write as straight forward and succinctly! There have been times when the Bishops issued a letter that I wish theyed sent a Post Card!

The Blessings of our Mother to all on this Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Thanks for the clarification. So no 5 either? I hope that you understand by point now. It is not as divided as everyone likes to say. I just don’t like the misrepresentation. It happens all the time.

Thanks for the update.

Michael

We’ve already had two – one side says baptize in the name of Jesus alone, and another says baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Now, we Catholics practice infant baptism – there are other sects which deny infant baptism.

So that’s four, right there.

And there are those who declare that only baptism by immersion is valid. That makes five.

 

[michaelp]

vern humphrey:

We’ve already had two – one side says baptize in the name of Jesus alone, and another says baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Now, we Catholics practice infant baptism – there are other sects which deny infant baptism.

So that’s four, right there.

And there are those who declare that only baptism by immersion is valid. That makes five.

What I meant was to name THEM, not the positions. But nevermind, my point is evident I think.

Have a great night all,

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

What I meant was to name THEM, not the positions. But nevermind, my point is evident I think.

Why? We agree that the positions exist. What does it add to the discussion to research and list all the churches that accept, for example, infant baptism and those which oppose it?

There clearly ARE at least five mutually opposing positions on the issue of baptism.

 

[michaelp]

Lutherans
2. Reformed Church
3. Anglicans
4. Presbyterians
5. Baptist
6. Methodist

None of these say that the method of baptism is absolutely essential. You are going to have to do better than this. Check up on their beliefs. Not one will tell you that you MUST baptize using this method and that it is essential for salvation or orthodoxy. This is not to say they don’t disagree, but none of them think the method of baptism is essential like you have said earlier.

If you are going to say this about this, show me. Here is a web-site that has all their creeds. Go there and check:

spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm

Now getting back to your original challenge, please find me any two of the above 6 MAJOR Protestant camps that have the same teaching

on baptism.

This was your origninal asssertation about the mode of baptism after I responded to the original post saying the mode was unimportant and non-essential:

“The larger point is that it IS essential to somebody–essential enough that their denomination may split over it. This is where Sola Scriptura/personal interpretation gets you. One side of the pew has one interpretation, the other side has another–if each believer is led by the Holy Spirit and Scripture is clear to all, how can things come to such a pass? Who’s to say whether the subject at hand is essential or not?”

Here was my response and challenge:

"Would you say that there are 30,000 different interpretations on the of the mode of baptism and that this mode is essential? If so, please justfy your response by listing all 30,000 (I use this number because it seems to be popular with you all). Wait, that is too big of a task. I will ask for 50. No 20. No, no 10. What is that. . . . 5. OK, five. (I know, I am not funny, but I think it is funny, but this is just my interpretation )"

Now, to tell you the truth I don’t know any denomination that does not agrere about this. Not one. So I guess I will say, all of them. I know of not one creed or confession that says “unless you are baptized this way you cannot be saved.” The burden is on you for suggesting such a thing.

May God bless you and thank you for your continued willingness to dialogue. It is very kind.

Michael