What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[BreadOfLife]

Dear readers, like brother like sister sect, even islam tend to claim they were muslims, if given a chance.

But they don’t have history and documentation behind them to PROVE it.

The Catholic Church DOES . . .

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Hey, RedFan! If I may answer that question for myself...?

Those who disagree with Cathoilc teaching are distinguished from liars by this:

Those who disagree with Catholic teaching admit what the Catholic Church actually teaches, but disagree, for whatever reason.

Liars put forth something that the Catholic Church doesn't teach, and, yet, claim that it does. In some case the lying is more aggregious because they have been corrected and told that what the Catholic Church DOES teach, yet continue to spread the lie that it teachings something that it doesn't teach.

Chronic liars as you described are not seeking the truth, as evidenced by their refusal to be corrected. Worse, they scourge my Lord with scripture. A Lavrovite is a propagandizing sadist who gets some kind of sick satisfaction by insulting Catholics, and a masochist who gets some kind of sick satisfaction being spanked. A forum sadomasochist is one sick puppy, addicted to emotionally charged insults and is incapable of meaningful dialogue.

Matthew 18:17-35​

17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. (or use the ignore feature)

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

But they don’t have history and documentation behind them to PROVE it.

The Catholic Church DOES . . .

Checking to see if a claim is true is not that hard, just trace the claim to it's origins. Claims with little or no history are suspect, like "sola scriptura" and "sola fide". Tracing that doctrinal history stops at the 16th century, not the 1st. Many anti-Catholics don't even know the history of false claims, they just assume self righteousness with unbiblical individualism.

 

[Peterlag]

Purposes of paedobaptism:

1. As a parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament, Luke 2:21.
2. Initiate the baby into the Christian community because his parent is a Christian, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 7:14.

I baptized all my 5 kids by near submersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when they were 8 days old. I understand that the evidence for infant baptism in the Bible is not explicit and is debatable. So, when my kids were teenagers, I told them that if they believed that was sufficient, there would be no need to be baptized again; but if not, feel free to have an official adult believer's baptism from a reputable local church.

Galatians 5:1-4
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

We will fall from the understanding of the grace that is in Christ, and succumb to the doctrines and theories that are dictated by human conception if we seek justification by our own works. The concision was from those who taught circumcision was necessary for salvation. Circumcision is a work of the flesh required by the Old Testament Law, and by the way so is water baptism, which is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established. To suggest water baptism has anything to do with the only begotten resurrected Son of God, who is functioning within the New Testament as the head of the body of Christ, has led to nothing but confusion and has provided a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces.

 

[GodsGrace]

Galatians 5:1-4
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

We will fall from the understanding of the grace that is in Christ, and succumb to the doctrines and theories that are dictated by human conception if we seek justification by our own works. The concision was from those who taught circumcision was necessary for salvation. Circumcision is a work of the flesh required by the Old Testament Law, and by the way so is water baptism, which is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established. To suggest water baptism has anything to do with the only begotten resurrected Son of God, who is functioning within the New Testament as the head of the body of Christ, has led to nothing but confusion and has provided a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces.

Why do you suppose that Jesus told the Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Matthew 28:19
19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

What do you make of Acts 10:47?
46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

 

[Truther]

Exactly, please take note that others are referred to as beasts of the field and sea, nations of people, but only one is a woman and a whore. Because she is in union and have close relationship and ties with all religious and political figures and nations in the world. She rides on the beast, the anti-Christ, when worldwide all Bible believing and not yielding to his requirements and order, will be persecuted.

She is drunk with the cup of wine, elated that she has taken the blood of all the martyrs whom she name 'heretics'. Those tortured and blood drawn, martyrs since ancient time to the martyrs in the time of anti-Christ. But shame on her, she will be toppled by the very anti-Christ himself, as the beast will toss her off it's back.

She claim to be the Christ figure on earth and for the world, but apparently the false messiahs, teachers and prophets Jesus predicted. Whom shall arise after Him, but rather at the end of their or her glory, shipwrecked and decay.

For the record, she is iron, but the forth kingdom is of 'iron' mixed with 'clay'. She 'iron', will partner with another nation of 'clay', who's political figure will be the anti-Christ.

Excellent post

 

[Truther]

What I know is that you said we are to confess our faults to each other. If Jesus is the confessor, why would we confess our faults to anyone else? That's my question of you. If you think sins are not faults, just say so.

Faults are not breaking God’s laws. Faults are even things we share from the pulpit.

Being mad but sinning not is a fault

 

[Truther]

Confessing ones sins to one another is not the same as forgiveness of sins. The AUTHORITY to FORGIVE SINS rests with the Apostles, and by extension, their successors. Authority is GIVEN, not taken. And it is Christ Who does the forgiving THROUGH the Apostles and their successors in the Sacrament of Confession that He instituted in John 20:19-23.

Apostolic Authority is transferred by the laying on of hands. Christ gave His authority to teach, preach, sanctify and govern His Church to the Apostles. They, in turn, handed down this authority to their successors, the bishops. The bishops did likewise, down through the centuries. Every Catholic bishop's authority comes through a succession of bishops back to a particular Apostle, who got that authority from Christ.

Acts 1:15-26 – the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 – a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 – literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 – even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 – the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 – preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 – Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 – Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 – again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 – Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 – Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 – at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 – the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.

1 John 4:6 – whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Exodus 18:25-26 – Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.

Exodus 40:15 – the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.

Numbers 3:3 – the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”

Numbers 16:40 – shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.

Numbers 27:18-20 – shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.

Deut. 34:9 – Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.

Sirach 45:15 – Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.

We don’t forgive sins but baptize in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. We don’t replace Acts 2:38 with our chit chats.

 

[Truther]

You are BORN in sin, Einstein (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Rom. 5:12, Rom. 5:19, Eph. 2:3, 1 Cor. 15:22).

Baptism removes this sin at ANY age. That’s why Peter Baptized the entire household of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14) and Paul Baptized the entire households of the Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:23-33 ) and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16), Einstein.

Ignorant and clueless is NO way to go through life, son . . .

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ remits sins, which you forbid.

 

[GodsGrace]

Confessing ones sins to one another is not the same as forgiveness of sins. The AUTHORITY to FORGIVE SINS rests with the Apostles, and by extension, their successors. Authority is GIVEN, not taken. And it is Christ Who does the forgiving THROUGH the Apostles and their successors in the Sacrament of Confession that He instituted in John 20:19-23.

Apostolic Authority is transferred by the laying on of hands. Christ gave His authority to teach, preach, sanctify and govern His Church to the Apostles. They, in turn, handed down this authority to their successors, the bishops. The bishops did likewise, down through the centuries. Every Catholic bishop's authority comes through a succession of bishops back to a particular Apostle, who got that authority from Christ.

Acts 1:15-26 – the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 – a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 – literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 – even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 – apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 – the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 – preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 – Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 – Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 – again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 – Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 – Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 – at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 – the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.

1 John 4:6 – whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Exodus 18:25-26 – Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.

Exodus 40:15 – the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.

Numbers 3:3 – the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”

Numbers 16:40 – shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.

Numbers 27:18-20 – shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.

Deut. 34:9 – Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.

Sirach 45:15 – Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.

Hi Augustine
I hope the above is not copywrited because I just copied and saved it.
Very good post and points.

I believe in Apostolic Succession but cannot define myself as a Catholic although I attend the CC right now.
Anyway, yes, I dislike Augustine but whatever. This isn't the place.
But I do like what you post.

As you must surely know,,,he had a lot to do with changing what baptism meant for the early Christians.
(who did baptize their children).

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Galatians 5:1-4
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

We will fall from the understanding of the grace that is in Christ, and succumb to the doctrines and theories that are dictated by human conception if we seek justification by our own works. The concision was from those who taught circumcision was necessary for salvation. Circumcision is a work of the flesh required by the Old Testament Law, and by the way so is water baptism, which is a carryover from part of the Levitical Law.

No, baptism is the fulfilment of the purpose of circumcision, to enter into a covenant, a gift from God, not a Judaizing carry-over.

There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

The command to baptize is not a legalism nor is it a work of the flesh. It is an outward sign (water) of an inward grace (spirit). Water AND spirit is not a dichotomy.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God.

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism.

Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

Again, you make a false dichotomy with water AND spirit. " a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards" is a private theory that conflicts with early church history.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit.

No, the norm is first water baptism, which allows for Holy Spirit to function in a greater capacity as the person matures. Technically, it's better termed as a release of the Holy Spirit one received at baptism. But God can make exceptions, we don't tell God what to do.

as the person matures.And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Repeat, repeat, repeat. Acts 2:38 is not the liturgical formula commanded in Matthew 28:19, for the tenth time.

In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established. To suggest water baptism has anything to do with the only begotten resurrected Son of God, who is functioning within the New Testament as the head of the body of Christ, has led to nothing but confusion and has provided a bomb that has blown the local churches into pieces.

Some Christian denominations outside mainstream Protestantism, such as Oneness Pentecostals, argue that the trinitarian formula doesn’t match with what the Bible has to say about baptism. They claim that baptism should be administered only “in the name of Jesus.”

For support, they appeal to passages like Acts 2:38, where Peter says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Other passages include Acts 8:14-16 (with reference to those in Samaria who had received the word of God), 10:48 (with reference to Cornelius and his Gentile friends), and 19:5 (with reference to believers in Ephesus)

The first thing that we can say in response is that the trinitarian formula can’t be rejected outright because Jesus expressly commanded the apostles to baptize using that formula: “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” (Matt. 28:19).

A second response is that Jesus’ instruction to use the trinitarian formula is distinct in nature from the “in the name of Jesus” passages found in the book of Acts. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus is addressing ministers whom he is sending to perform baptisms. It stands to reason, therefore, that Jesus would give them the exact formula to use in administering the sacrament.

This instruction stands in contrast with the “in the name of Jesus” passages found in the book of Acts. Take Peter’s injunction in Acts 2, for example, which takes place in a public setting and is given not to those who would be performing baptisms, but to those who would receive it. Those present who were listening to his preaching were “cut to the heart” and asked him, “Brethren, what shall we do?” We shouldn’t view Peter’s response as a precise set of instructions in how baptisms are to be performed, but as an answer to their question of how to be saved—“repent and get baptized!”

Concerning Peter’s command in Acts 10:48 for Cornelius to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ,” here too Peter is speaking to those who will be receiving baptism, not those who would administer it. Moreover, Luke is not recording what Peter said verbatim. He merely narrates in summary form: “And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” It doesn’t seem that Luke intends to say that the words “in the name of Jesus” were the actual words used in administering baptism.

The other “in the name of Jesus” passages (Acts 8:14-16; 19:5) are even further removed from instructions on how to baptize. Neither are they a retelling of the exact words used for baptism, but merely passing references to the fact that some were baptized: “They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:14-16), “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

continued...

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

A third response is that we have evidence that the early Christians did in fact use the trinitarian formula. Consider, for example, Acts 19:1-5. Luke tells us that Paul passed through the upper country of Ephesus and found some believers there. Paul asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” The believers responded, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Puzzled as to why they never heard of the Holy Spirit, Paul asked, “Into what then were you baptized?” They responded, “Into John’s baptism.”

The implication here is that these believers in Ephesus should have heard of the Holy Spirit if they were baptized with the right baptism. If the formula were Jesus’ name only, then Paul’s question would make no sense.* The question makes sense only if the name of the Holy Spirit was expected to be used in the ritual when believers were baptized, as it is in the trinitarian formula that Christ commands the apostles to use in Matthew 28:19.

The earliest record outside the Bible for the use of the trinitarian formula is the Didache, which is an early Christian handbook dating to around A.D. 50-70. It gives the following instructions on how to baptize:

And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit (7).​

​

Passages like these give rise to a legitimate question: why is the Church saying that we can baptize with the trinitarian formula when all the baptisms in the Bible are seemingly done “in the name of Jesus”?

Given this evidence for the trinitarian formula, why all the talk about “in the name of Jesus”? It’s likely that the early Church used this expression to distinguish Jesus’ baptism from other types. Christian baptism wasn’t the only baptism in town, since John the Baptist was administering his baptism of repentance (see also Matt. 3:13-14, 21:25; Acts 1:22, 10:37). Even the Jewish ceremonial washings were considered as a baptism of sorts. For example, in Luke 11:37-38 the Pharisees invite Jesus to dine with him, and Luke tells us that the Pharisees were “astonished to see that he [Jesus] did not first wash before dinner.” The Greek word for “wash” here is ebaptizthē, the root of which is baptizō. Other traditions involve the “washing” (Greek, baptismous) of cups and vessels (Mark 7:4).

So there would have been a need to distinguish Jesus’ baptism—baptism “in the name of Jesus”—from all these other kinds of baptisms. We see this play out in Acts 19, where, after Paul realizes the believers in Ephesus were baptized only into John’s baptism, we’re told that “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v.5), signifying that they were baptized in the Christian way.

We find something similar in the Didache, which, after giving the trinitarian formula for baptism, refers back to it later as baptism “in the name of the Lord” (9.5). So, for the early Christians, baptism “in the name of the Lord” or “in the name of Jesus” meant baptism using the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Again, *If the formula were Jesus’ name only, then Paul’s question would make no sense.

 

[GodsGrace]

A third response is that we have evidence that the early Christians did in fact use the trinitarian formula. Consider, for example, Acts 19:1-5. Luke tells us that Paul passed through the upper country of Ephesus and found some believers there. Paul asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” The believers responded, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Puzzled as to why they never heard of the Holy Spirit, Paul asked, “Into what then were you baptized?” They responded, “Into John’s baptism.”

The implication here is that these believers in Ephesus should have heard of the Holy Spirit if they were baptized with the right baptism. If the formula were Jesus’ name only, then Paul’s question would make no sense.* The question makes sense only if the name of the Holy Spirit was expected to be used in the ritual when believers were baptized, as it is in the trinitarian formula that Christ commands the apostles to use in Matthew 28:19.

The earliest record outside the Bible for the use of the trinitarian formula is the Didache, which is an early Christian handbook dating to around A.D. 50-70. It gives the following instructions on how to baptize:

And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit (7).​

​

Passages like these give rise to a legitimate question: why is the Church saying that we can baptize with the trinitarian formula when all the baptisms in the Bible are seemingly done “in the name of Jesus”?

Given this evidence for the trinitarian formula, why all the talk about “in the name of Jesus”? It’s likely that the early Church used this expression to distinguish Jesus’ baptism from other types. Christian baptism wasn’t the only baptism in town, since John the Baptist was administering his baptism of repentance (see also Matt. 3:13-14, 21:25; Acts 1:22, 10:37). Even the Jewish ceremonial washings were considered as a baptism of sorts. For example, in Luke 11:37-38 the Pharisees invite Jesus to dine with him, and Luke tells us that the Pharisees were “astonished to see that he [Jesus] did not first wash before dinner.” The Greek word for “wash” here is ebaptizthē, the root of which is baptizō. Other traditions involve the “washing” (Greek, baptismous) of cups and vessels (Mark 7:4).

So there would have been a need to distinguish Jesus’ baptism—baptism “in the name of Jesus”—from all these other kinds of baptisms. We see this play out in Acts 19, where, after Paul realizes the believers in Ephesus were baptized only into John’s baptism, we’re told that “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v.5), signifying that they were baptized in the Christian way.

We find something similar in the Didache, which, after giving the trinitarian formula for baptism, refers back to it later as baptism “in the name of the Lord” (9.5). So, for the early Christians, baptism “in the name of the Lord” or “in the name of Jesus” meant baptism using the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Again, *If the formula were Jesus’ name only, then Paul’s question would make no sense.

What great replies!

I agree with all you've said....In the name of Jesus is not a formula but is a TYPE of baptism.
The FORMULA is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In the name of Jesus simply distinguishes the baptism of John from the baptism of Jesus.
John's was to prepare the way...
Jesus' is in power and spirit, as He asked the disciples to wait in Jerusalem in Acts 2.
John's was for the forgiveness of sins, and also in Jesus' baptism all sins are forgiven till that point.

and all that other stuff you correctly posted...
:)

 

[Augustin56]

We don’t forgive sins but baptize in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. We don’t replace Acts 2:38 with our chit chats.

Jesus does, indeed, forgive sins through the Sacrament of Baptism. Agreed. However, there is but one Baptism. You cannot receive the Sacrament more than one time.

However, Jesus also forgives sins through the Sacrament of Confession through His appointed heirarchy of His Church, as outlined in John 20:19-23. Therefore, after we are baptized, if we sin again, then we need to reconcile with God through the Sacrament He provided for that purpose.

It's not an either/or (common non-Catholic mistake), but an and/both situation.

 

[RedFan]

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ remits sins, which you forbid.

And what about your post-baptism sins?

 

[Truther]

Jesus does, indeed, forgive sins through the Sacrament of Baptism. Agreed. However, there is but one Baptism. You cannot receive the Sacrament more than one time.

However, Jesus also forgives sins through the Sacrament of Confession through His appointed heirarchy of His Church, as outlined in John 20:19-23. Therefore, after we are baptized, if we sin again, then we need to reconcile with God through the Sacrament He provided for that purpose.

It's not an either/or (common non-Catholic mistake), but an and/both situation.

God can forgive a human being of their sins in a one time event or whatever he wants to do. But to find remission of sins, which is a clean slate before God and be officially saved, one must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.

Even though they have a sinful nature and still vulnerable at that point, they are free from sin by the blood of Jesus .

 

[Truther]

And what about your post-baptism sins?

Great question. After being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, we are saved from future sins. This means our spirit is saved, but our nature or our flesh is not saved. Romans 7 clearly explains this stuff.

 

[Truther]

A third response is that we have evidence that the early Christians did in fact use the trinitarian formula. Consider, for example, Acts 19:1-5. Luke tells us that Paul passed through the upper country of Ephesus and found some believers there. Paul asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” The believers responded, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Puzzled as to why they never heard of the Holy Spirit, Paul asked, “Into what then were you baptized?” They responded, “Into John’s baptism.”

The implication here is that these believers in Ephesus should have heard of the Holy Spirit if they were baptized with the right baptism. If the formula were Jesus’ name only, then Paul’s question would make no sense.* The question makes sense only if the name of the Holy Spirit was expected to be used in the ritual when believers were baptized, as it is in the trinitarian formula that Christ commands the apostles to use in Matthew 28:19.

The earliest record outside the Bible for the use of the trinitarian formula is the Didache, which is an early Christian handbook dating to around A.D. 50-70. It gives the following instructions on how to baptize:

And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit (7).​

​

Passages like these give rise to a legitimate question: why is the Church saying that we can baptize with the trinitarian formula when all the baptisms in the Bible are seemingly done “in the name of Jesus”?

Given this evidence for the trinitarian formula, why all the talk about “in the name of Jesus”? It’s likely that the early Church used this expression to distinguish Jesus’ baptism from other types. Christian baptism wasn’t the only baptism in town, since John the Baptist was administering his baptism of repentance (see also Matt. 3:13-14, 21:25; Acts 1:22, 10:37). Even the Jewish ceremonial washings were considered as a baptism of sorts. For example, in Luke 11:37-38 the Pharisees invite Jesus to dine with him, and Luke tells us that the Pharisees were “astonished to see that he [Jesus] did not first wash before dinner.” The Greek word for “wash” here is ebaptizthē, the root of which is baptizō. Other traditions involve the “washing” (Greek, baptismous) of cups and vessels (Mark 7:4).

So there would have been a need to distinguish Jesus’ baptism—baptism “in the name of Jesus”—from all these other kinds of baptisms. We see this play out in Acts 19, where, after Paul realizes the believers in Ephesus were baptized only into John’s baptism, we’re told that “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v.5), signifying that they were baptized in the Christian way.

We find something similar in the Didache, which, after giving the trinitarian formula for baptism, refers back to it later as baptism “in the name of the Lord” (9.5). So, for the early Christians, baptism “in the name of the Lord” or “in the name of Jesus” meant baptism using the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Again, *If the formula were Jesus’ name only, then Paul’s question would make no sense.

I would not rely on authenticity of any early church, fathers writings, or extra biblical commentary. This is just a Catholic trick.

 

[Peterlag]

No, baptism is the fulfilment of the purpose of circumcision, to enter into a covenant, a gift from God, not a Judaizing carry-over.

The command to baptize is not a legalism nor is it a work of the flesh. It is an outward sign (water) of an inward grace (spirit). Water AND spirit is not a dichotomy.

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism.

Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).


Again, you make a false dichotomy with water AND spirit. " a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards" is a private theory that conflicts with early church history.

No, the norm is first water baptism, which allows for Holy Spirit to function in a greater capacity as the person matures. Technically, it's better termed as a release of the Holy Spirit one received at baptism. But God can make exceptions, we don't tell God what to do.

Repeat, repeat, repeat. Acts 2:38 is not the liturgical formula commanded in Matthew 28:19, for the tenth time.

Some Christian denominations outside mainstream Protestantism, such as Oneness Pentecostals, argue that the trinitarian formula doesn’t match with what the Bible has to say about baptism. They claim that baptism should be administered only “in the name of Jesus.”

For support, they appeal to passages like Acts 2:38, where Peter says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Other passages include Acts 8:14-16 (with reference to those in Samaria who had received the word of God), 10:48 (with reference to Cornelius and his Gentile friends), and 19:5 (with reference to believers in Ephesus)

The first thing that we can say in response is that the trinitarian formula can’t be rejected outright because Jesus expressly commanded the apostles to baptize using that formula: “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” (Matt. 28:19).

A second response is that Jesus’ instruction to use the trinitarian formula is distinct in nature from the “in the name of Jesus” passages found in the book of Acts. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus is addressing ministers whom he is sending to perform baptisms. It stands to reason, therefore, that Jesus would give them the exact formula to use in administering the sacrament.

This instruction stands in contrast with the “in the name of Jesus” passages found in the book of Acts. Take Peter’s injunction in Acts 2, for example, which takes place in a public setting and is given not to those who would be performing baptisms, but to those who would receive it. Those present who were listening to his preaching were “cut to the heart” and asked him, “Brethren, what shall we do?” We shouldn’t view Peter’s response as a precise set of instructions in how baptisms are to be performed, but as an answer to their question of how to be saved—“repent and get baptized!”

Concerning Peter’s command in Acts 10:48 for Cornelius to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ,” here too Peter is speaking to those who will be receiving baptism, not those who would administer it. Moreover, Luke is not recording what Peter said verbatim. He merely narrates in summary form: “And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” It doesn’t seem that Luke intends to say that the words “in the name of Jesus” were the actual words used in administering baptism.

The other “in the name of Jesus” passages (Acts 8:14-16; 19:5) are even further removed from instructions on how to baptize. Neither are they a retelling of the exact words used for baptism, but merely passing references to the fact that some were baptized: “They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:14-16), “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

continued...

We do not agree. I believe water baptism is taught in our churches today because it's a carryover from the Catholics who have never been right about anything.

 

[Peterlag]

Why do you suppose that Jesus told the Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Matthew 28:19
19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

What do you make of Acts 10:47?
46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

Matthew 28:19 does not mention water and they must of said no in Acts 10:47 because they did not baptize with water there either.