What's the difference between baptism in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and in the name of "Jesus Christ"?

[may_they_be_one]

Three references to baptism in the books of Acts and Romans refer to baptisms being done “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

One reference to baptism in the Gospel of Matthew refers to baptism “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

I’ve heard non-denominational pastors say that the first type is the only valid type.

I’ve heard RC priests say that the second type is the only valid type.

Each denomination thinks the other is wrong, and speaks as if they are the ones that are right. Paul said we should be one in mind and accord (used as an argument for doctrinal agreement). But Jesus prayed simply that we be one (an argument for heart agreement–since his entire ministry to the Jewish leaders was telling them to LIVE the faith, not just KNOW the faith).

HOW can we believers work together to bring the Body of Christ on earth into one accord in the TRUE meaning of His words? LIVING his word (as the Samaritan did) versus knowing his word (as the Pharisees did) seems to be Jesus’ true measuring stick.

Ultimately, we will be judged by what we’ve DONE on earth (Rev. 21:8). So by whatever means we believe and live our faith in Jesus, as long as it results in a life of conversion, seems to be the path through which we should practice our faith.

I see ex-gang members, drug dealers, etc (many of whom are former cradle Catholics) getting "saved"and starting their conversion journey while attending non-Catholic churches–worshipping and believing in Jesus as best they can. I also see the similar effect happening in Catholic churches (where the new church attender may still not totally understand the “fullness” of the faith). IS IT POSSIBLE TO AGREE TO HOLD TO THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL?

Paul wrote to Titus (chap 3), “remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility towards ALL men… But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are UNPROFITABLE AND USELESS.”

I am truly hoping and praying to see a major move in the hearts of ALL Christian leaders to seek unity in the TRUE meaning of Christ’s life, death and resurrection: to lead their flocks into lives of repentance, holiness and LOVE for all mankind (especially for fellow believers who understand and practice their faith in a different tradition).

 

[AJTheMan]

**Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit **- Recognizes the triune nature of God

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ - Does not necessarily recognize the triune nature of God. (Ie: Unitarians are baptized but are not baptized as trinitarians)

 

[wardrandolph]

Hello.First may I quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church#1240:In the Latin Church,this triple infusion is accompanied by the Minister’s words;N,I Baptize you in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and the Holy Spirit.This is a valid Baptism.Jesus prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one.Jesus and His Father were in complete agreement.Jesus submitted to the Fathers will(not my will,but thine be done).People generally have a problem submitting to authority be it God,Church etc.Sacered Scripture commands us to submit to church authority.Bishops(Apostles)Priests,teachers etc.As has been stated numerous times in these forums,The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of truth.The Church has the authority and obligation to define,explain and teach matters of Faith,Morals and the right interpretaton of Sacred Scripture.The Holy Spirit is not sczophrinic.He dos’nt reveal a differant truth to an individual than He does to another individual.Truth is one Truth,not hundreds or thousands.The Catholic Church teaches one truth, and that is Jesus Christ.Peace,Rocky.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Three references to baptism in the books of Acts and Romans refer to baptisms being done “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

One reference to baptism in the Gospel of Matthew refers to baptism “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

I’ve heard non-denominational pastors say that the first type is the only valid type.

I’ve heard RC priests say that the second type is the only valid type.

The “name of Jesus” baptism in Acts is an identification of who the baptism was for, because many times Luke writes on the “baptism of John,” whereas the apostles taught on the “baptism of Jesus.” They still upheld Christ’s command of baptizing “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” however.

 

[geekborj]

The true unity is both in body and spirit – physically and ideally.

Unfortunately, the one Body of Christ (the one Church) was broken when some chose to severe themselves from the Vine.

IMHO, BOTH statements about the baptism is correct. Why, the catholic Church says that Jesus is God. Hence, “in the name of Jesus” is just as saying “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

HOWEVER, when it comes to the actual baptism itself, one has to say the full name of God: “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This is what catholics call the “form” (spirit) of Baptism that calls on the Holy Spirit, while water is the “matter” (physical). This is the Faith of the one Church since the Pentecost. Anything else is a deviation or a form of protest from the “mainstream” – from the Vine.

In the end, the question lies here: Who chose to severe themselves from the Vine? Who has the authority given by Christ – to feed and tend the lambs and sheep of Christ’s Flock? If the main Vine lost it’s connection with Christ only to resurface after many decades or years, then how can Christ promise a Holy Spirit that will ALWAYS guide his Church until the end of times?

There can be only ONE authoritative teacher – the Church under the leadership of the one sitting on the Office of Peter.

 

[geekborj]

The “name of Jesus” baptism in Acts is an identification of who the baptism was for, because many times Luke writes on the “baptism of John,” whereas the apostles taught on the “baptism of Jesus.” They still upheld Christ’s command of baptizing “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” however.

well written. short and to the point.

 

[Moscati]

I’m surprised to hear of non-denoms baptizing without the Trinitarian formula–that would have been a big no-no, in the non-denom churches I’ve been to. I guess they come in all flavors, but in my experience the ‘sola Scriptura’ crowd tends to stick with “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”–because Jesus laid it out so clearly in the Gospels.

Certain mainline Protestants, now . . . I once heard tell of an “experimental” baptismal liturgy that went “I drown you in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer.”

 

[LilyM]

IMHO, BOTH statements about the baptism is correct. Why, the catholic Church says that Jesus is God. Hence, “in the name of Jesus” is just as saying “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Not quite. Jesus IS God, but Jesus is NOT the Father nor is Jesus the Holy Spirit. So saying ‘in the name of Jesus’ is NOT the same thing as saying ‘in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’.

If what you say is true then the many times Jesus prayed to the Father would make no more sense than a mad person talking aloud to themselves.

And His statement in scripture that He had to go away so that the Holy Spirit could come upon the Apostles (I think it’s near the end of John) would also make absolutely no sense. He would by your logic be saying ‘I have to go away so that I can come back’

 

[PJM]

=may_they_be_one;Three references to baptism in the books of Acts and Romans refer to baptisms being done “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

One reference to baptism in the Gospel of Matthew refers to baptism “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

I’ve heard non-denominational pastors say that the first type is the only valid type.

I’ve heard RC priests say that the second type is the only valid type

***While there are [out of context] verses that speak of “Baptism is the name of Jesus.” the inference is ALWAYS “in the Spirit.” [Mk. 1:8, Acts 1:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16 and Acts 11:16 FOR EXAMPLES.]

Baptism, clearly and specifically by Christ Himself MUST be in the name of the Trinity, as the TRINITY is how God chooses to make Himself present and known to us. [See The Baptism of Jesus Himself; Jesus, th Holy Spirit and the Voice of the Father are all present… Mt. 3:13-16.] Reread Mt.28:19-20. God’s own words.***
.

Each denomination thinks the other is wrong, and speaks as if they are the ones that are right. Paul said we should be one in mind and accord (used as an argument for doctrinal agreement). But Jesus prayed simply that we be one (an argument for heart agreement–since his entire ministry to the Jewish leaders was telling them to LIVE the faith, not just KNOW the faith).

***Yes he did. And at the time he spoke these words he was a Catholic, speaking to the only Christian [Catholic] church in existence at th time. See Eph. 2:19-23. ***

HOW can we believers work together to bring the Body of Christ on earth into one accord in the TRUE meaning of His words? LIVING his word (as the Samaritan did) versus knowing his word (as the Pharisees did) seems to be Jesus’ true measuring stick.

Ultimately, we will be judged by what we’ve DONE on earth (Rev. 21:8). So by whatever means we believe and live our faith in Jesus, as long as it results in a life of conversion, seems to be the path through which we should practice our faith

.

**Nice, easy, conveinant; BUT not true reread the passages I suggested above. Are we to beleive as you seem to imply that one can participate in God’s Glory without participating in Christ Passion?

“If you would come after me take up your cross AND FOLLOW ME.”**

**Matt.5: 19 **“Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” ** Matt.19: 17 **"And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. ***If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” ***

I see ex-gang members, drug dealers, etc (many of whom are former cradle Catholics) getting "saved"and starting their conversion journey while attending non-Catholic churches–worshipping and believing in Jesus as best they can. I also see the similar effect happening in Catholic churches (where the new church attender may still not totally understand the “fullness” of the faith). IS IT POSSIBLE TO AGREE TO HOLD TO THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL?

***[Friend, they ONLY THINK they are being saved. Reread Mt. 16:15-18, Mt. 16:19, John 20:21–23, Eph.2: 19-22 and Heb 6:4-10… dreaming, wishing, thinking, denying truth; does not change it.]:***o

[QIOTE]Paul wrote to Titus (chap 3), “remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility towards ALL men… But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are UNPROFITABLE AND USELESS.”

I am truly hoping and praying to see a major move in the hearts of ALL Christian leaders to seek unity in the TRUE meaning of Christ’s life, death and resurrection: to lead their flocks into lives of repentance, holiness and LOVE for all mankind (especially for fellow believers who understand and practice their faith in a different tradition).

This is what Jesus Teaches:

**Matt.28 Verses 18 to 20:"**And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

***Love and prayers friends,

Pat

Your heart is in the right place, and we thank you. But your understanding of what the Bible teaches and God actually wants; demands is seriously lacking understanding. This is another example of precisely why the bible can only be properly understood when in conformity with the CC for which it was specifically written.***

 

[may_they_be_one]

What, in everyone’s interpretation, is the significance of the canonical shift of Vatican II allowing pre-baptized converts to the RCC to maintain their original baptism?

Was the spirit of Vatican II to move us in a direction of unity? Or was it just wishful thinking?

Would it be loving for those RC’s who actually know the fullness of the faith to accept the lack of knowledge or faith of our non-RC brethren (and those RC brethren who have never been taught or sought the fullness of their faith)? Speaking from experience, this might cause a willingness for true dialogue and growth in love among all who profess Jesus as Lord.

Has anyone ever been inspired by an non-RC’s faith? When’s the last time you attended a non-RC church service, or read a book written by a non-RC? I know they’re lacking in knowledge, but their faith is strong. Can I challenge you to outreach and share prayer together with other non-RC’s (under no denominational pretenses)? It might be an answer to Jesus’ prayer.

As St. Francis prayed, “may I seek not to be understood, as to understand,” and as St. Paul wrote, “…for we know only in part, but when the complete comes, the partial will end… Now I only know in part; then I will know fully. And now three things remain: …and the greatest of these is love.”

With Love.

 

[LilyM]

What, in everyone’s interpretation, is the significance of the canonical shift of Vatican II allowing pre-baptized converts to the RCC to maintain their original baptism?

Was the spirit of Vatican II to move us in a direction of unity? Or was it just wishful thinking?

Would it be loving for those RC’s who actually know the fullness of the faith to accept the lack of knowledge or faith of our non-RC brethren (and those RC brethren who have never been taught or sought the fullness of their faith)? Speaking from experience, this might cause a willingness for true dialogue and growth in love among all who profess Jesus as Lord.

Has anyone ever been inspired by an non-RC’s faith? When’s the last time you attended a non-RC church service, or read a book written by a non-RC? I know they’re lacking in knowledge, but their faith is strong. Can I challenge you to outreach and share prayer together with other non-RC’s (under no denominational pretenses)? It might be an answer to Jesus’ prayer.

As St. Francis prayed, “may I seek not to be understood, as to understand,” and as St. Paul wrote, “…for we know only in part, but when the complete comes, the partial will end… Now I only know in part; then I will know fully. And now three things remain: …and the greatest of these is love.”

With Love.

As far as I am aware there has been no shift in the Church’s attitude on the sacrament of baptism post Vatican 2. What evidence do you have that there WAS such a shift?

For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 states the following:

“From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid.”

Which is exactly what the church teaches today - Trinitarian water baptisms are valid, even if not performed by Catholics, and only those that do not use water or are not ‘in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost’ are invalid.

The part about ‘intends to perform what the Church performs’ simply means the person baptising needs to intend to really baptise. Which rules out, for example, an actor mimicking a baptism as part of a scene in a play or film.

Any person, even an atheist, can, it has long been held, have the necessary intent and thus perform a valid baptism, they certainly don’t have to be Catholic or anything.

As a personal anecdote, my grandmother converted from Serbian Orthodoxy to Catholicism, must’ve been about 60 or 70 years ago. She didn’t have to be rebaptised, as her Orthodox baptism was recognised as valid.

 

[peary1]

Simply understood, it is the command given by Christ to the disciples, when he told them, 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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20)

If His words are eternal, and if the Bible is God’s Word, then one must follow His Words. He never says to baptize anyone “in the name of Jesus Christ.” He says to baptize others “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” PERIOD.

 

[PJM]

Re: What’s the difference between baptism in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and in the name of “Jesus Christ”?

What, in everyone’s interpretation, is the significance of the canonical shift of Vatican II allowing pre-baptized converts to the RCC to maintain their original baptism?

Was the spirit of Vatican II to move us in a direction of unity? Or was it just wishful thinking?

***My dear freind in Christ,

While I’m in total agreement with the sediments you express, I nevertheless take serious the basic error of what I PERCEIVE you are proposing.

First, I do not accept the premise of the CC accepting that non-Catholic Christian Baptism as orginating with Vatican II.

The Council of Trent Session Seven: "CANON IV.-*If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema. **

***Additionally, while what you propose is only the minimun in Christian Charity, nevertheless, there exist profound differences in understanding of the Divine Nature of God, The Sacramants, What “Obedince” actually means and how it is to be applied, many issues of "The [singular] Truth on matters of Faith and Morals, and the Truth of the entire Bible.

It is not God’s Will that these issues be pushed aside in the name of a “common communion,” rather that TRUTH be sought and discussed with charity and understanding

But an informed Catholic canot put aside what is true and our obligation to share it, for to do so would be to Deny the mandate and authority of Christ in Mt. 16:19, 18:18, and 28:19-20. I cannot accept that as an expectation from Christ Jesus our Lord. ***

Would it be loving for those RC’s who actually know the fullness of the faith to accept the lack of knowledge or faith of our non-RC brethren (and those RC brethren who have never been taught or sought the fullness of their faith)? Speaking from experience, this might cause a willingness for true dialogue and growth in love among all who profess Jesus as Lord.

---

Indeed it would, so long as truth need not be compromised.***

Has anyone ever been inspired by an non-RC’s faith? When’s the last time you attended a non-RC church service, or read a book written by a non-RC? I know they’re lacking in knowledge, but their faith is strong. Can I challenge you to outreach and share prayer together with other non-RC’s (under no denominational pretenses)? It might be an answer to Jesus’ prayer.

The Grahams and Dr. Dobson for example. Outstanding Christians!

As St. Francis prayed, “may I seek not to be understood, as to understand,” and as St. Paul wrote, “…for we know only in part, but when the complete comes, the partial will end… Now I only know in part; then I will know fully. And now three things remain: …and the greatest of these is love.”

***The prayer of St. Francis, is one on the real treasures of our Faith. But even the Holy Francis would not go so far as to compromise what God has revealed to us as His Truth.It seems to me, that to seek to love instead of being loved is noble and a good start; still truth is. and must be shared.

This need for understanding, too has to apply to our separated Brethren, who one would hope are on this Forum to learn our positions and to then evaluate them against the singular truth possible; but so very often seem to only want to argue this point or that. Debate is not synonymous with arguing.

Love and prayers,***

Pat