Baptism in Jesus’ Name?
Jesus told the disciples; “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19) (NET)
“Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) (NET)
Every account of baptism in Acts shows the disciples baptizing believers in the name of Jesus Christ, and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as preferred today.
How do you resolve this with Matthew 28:19?
I received baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ as a trinitarian. And I believe this method identifies Jesus as God, as stated in the classic trinitarian model.
Any thoughts?
Comments
-
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
-
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
-
Notice Matthew says "name" singular and not the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And the disciples not only baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, but healed as well saying: “And on the basis of faith in Jesus’ name, his very name has made this man—whom you see and know—strong. The faith that is through Jesus has given him this complete health in the presence of you all.” (Acts 3:16) (NET)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
-
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
We have a lot of Catholic baggage polluting our churches today.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
Um, you did in your original post.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
-
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, which is exactly the same as the Catholics' interpretation.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
The author of this article states in regards to the "in the name of ...." the following:
Being baptized in the name of Jesus indicates an understanding by the person being baptized that Christ is the Savior.
...
Christian baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity.Seems to me to be a total misunderstanding of what the expression "in the name of ..." means. When someone does something "in the name of {someone else}" it means simply that they are acting under the authority of that someone else, as commissioned by that someone else, with the authority and power given them by that someone else.
The disciples were doing what they were doing as envoys of Jesus, as commanded by Jesus, as empowered and in the authority of Jesus .... the expression itself has nothing directly to do with what the person receiving baptism thinks or identifies with etc ...
What they were to think was told by Peter in the words "repent ...!"
As for Mt 28:19, there are some indications in older writings of the church historian Eusebius that the texts he had available did not contain the part about "and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost", but rather read "make disciples of all nations in my name." Those writings are all from the time before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and only after that council with its dogma of the Trinity and "anathema" to anyone saying differently, did Eusebius refer to Mt 28:19 and use the Trinity formula.
The reading "make disciples in my name" appears to be far more in harmony with the various records in Acts where we read about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... whereas there is NOT ONE mention anywhere in the NT scriptures that the apostles ever carried out baptism in the name of the Trinity.
This is false of course. Ignatius had the quote in his epistle to Philadelphia:
, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation p 85 of the Gentiles,”1 have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 84–85.
This would have been no later than 117 AD
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks. But did the disciples cast out demons in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or in Jesus' name?
How is that relevant?
“And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) (NET)
That doesn't mean everything you do you must say the name of Jesus Christ specifically. That's not what that say at all. If it did it would contradict Jesus' own words. What that is saying you are doing something in the authority of the name of Jesus, with his mission in mind, serving his purpose.
It is the same way police stop someone in the name of the law, do they always say in the name of the law? No, but they are acting with that authority.
Why did the disciples baptize in Jesus' name if your way was acceptable to them?
It's the same thing Dave.
It is not. Or else they would have taken Matthew as you do.
sigh
So are the Catholics right? About baptizing in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Or are the Disciples right, baptizing in the name Jesus Christ?
Both are right.
For the sake of not eating crow? Could it be the majority of Baptists, protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics are disobedient to the Word? Or do not understand it?
No
This is another position you cannot support from scripture.
Except I already have.
How do they say it? All hat & no cattle? You're a few cows short in your recent soundings off....
Hardly, I showed you what it means to do something in the name of something. I OFTEN show you biblically how I support my positions. You either come up with excuses that a certain portion of Scripture is worthless or you take something else out of context, or completely misinterpret a passage.
Where's the beef David? Help us here, we are starving. Throw us one morsel or shred of scripture supporting Baptism according to the Roman Catholic model.....
The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined. But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology), as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.” On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”
--New American Commentary: Matthew
Why did the disciples baptize everyone in Jesus' name? How do you defend the catholic model when scripture clearly refutes it?
How can you call it the catholic model when it is a direct quote from Scripture?
Who do you trust more? Peter or yourself and others who favor the Catholic model?
I quoted Jesus. It's not the Catholic model. It was the model Christ laid out in Matthew's Gospel. But I have already shown you that they are both the same thing.
Regardless, you reject Peter's interpretation of Jesus' words and rely on your own interpretation, that is exactly the same as the Catholics.
Take a look at what I just posted to @Wolfgang
Ignatius used the model Jesus did and that was less than 100 years after Christ's death. He lived among the apostles and would most likely have sat under their teaching.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)