Baptism in Jesus’ name (Trinitarian style)

They are following the Papacy and not Jesus. The Apostles followed Jesus. In essence, they are taking away from God's word or adding tradition in place of it.

 

I was baptized Baptist style as a believer. But when I saw it was based on Catholicism's Father, Son, and HolySpirit, I found another trinitarian Church to do it right. (As a side note, I still believe the Papacy is Antichrist, and he still sits in the temple of God (the church) through His false doctrines.)

 

It's like this. Jesus gave the Apostles an understanding of His word. When He told them to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they did exactly that. The Trinity has a name (singular) and it is Jesus Christ.

 

John's method was scriptural. But those who Paul re-baptized had not correctly understood John's message regarding Jesus. Acts of the Apostles 19:4.

 

Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. That's the bottom line on baptism.That's the way I was baptized, by immersion, and I believe that's the way it SHOULD be done, not because it's the way I was, but because that's the way JESUS said to do it. I don't care what the RCC or any other man says about it; the only thing that matters is what JESUS said about it. And by the way, "baptismo", the Greek infinitive from which we get "baptize", means "to immerse".

 

If the first one was valid, why even do another one, what did it accomplish?

 

What about those who had been infant baptized and are now saved requesting it?

 

Are you advocating Oneness here

 

Jesus is Yahweh. but so are the Father and Holy Spirit!

 

In the name of Jesus was a shorter version of the Matthew formula as the Jews were baptized in name if Jesus, but not in Him alone!

 

One of the first issues to come up in Corinth was that of baptism…

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. - 1 Corinthians 1

I would imagine the church at Corinth a multiple congregation church perhaps spanning some real estate. Can you imagine if Paul baptized a hundred or so souls on the West part of town and Apollos on the East? The church would have ended up divided over who baptized who.

 

Are you now into Oneness theology?

 

I Converted this to text from an internet file.

Catholic Encyclopedia Page 263 Baptism


of this sacrament, the act of baptism must be expressed, and the matter and form be united to leave no doubt of the meaning of the ceremony. In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has proscribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church. Tertullian tells us (De Bapt.,xiii): “The law of baptism (itingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (De Myst.v IV) declares: “ Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins.” St. Cyprian (Ad Jubaian.), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plend cl adunatd Trim late). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Princ., i, ii), St. Athanasius (Or. iv, Contr. Ar.), St. Augustine (De Bapt., vi, 25). It is not. of course, absolutely necessary that the common names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided the persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine persons is required and the form: “I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Trinity”, would be of more than doubtful validity. The singular form “In the name”, not “names”, is also to be employed, as it expresses the unity of the Divine nature. When, through ignorance, an accidental, not substantial, change has been made in the form (as In nomine putrid for Pair is), the baptism is to be held valid.

The mind of the Church as to the necessity of observing the Trinitarian formula in this sacrament has been clearly shown by her treatment of baptism conferred by heretics. Any ceremony that did not observe this form has been declared invalid. The Montanists baptized in the name of the Father and the 8on and Mont anus and Priscilla (J$t. Basil, Ep. i, Ad Ampliil.). As a consequence, the Council of Laodicea ordered their re baptism. The Arians at the time of the Council of Nicaea do not seem to have tampered with the baptismal formula, for that Council does not order their rebaptism. When, then, St. Athanasius (Or. ii, Contr. Ar.) and St. Jerome (Contra Lucif.) declare the Arians to have baptized in the name of the Creator and creatures, they must either refer to their doctrine or to a later changing of the sacramental form. It is well known that the latter was the case with the Spanish Arians and that consequently converts from tlic sect were rebaptized. The Anouueans, a branch of the Arians, baptized with the formula: “In the name of the uncreated God and in the name of the created Son, and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, procreated by the created Son” (Epiphanius, II:rr., Ixxvii). Other Arian sects, such as the Eunoinians and Aetians, baptized “in the death of Christ”. Converts from Sabellianism were ordered by the First Council of Constantinople (can. vii) to be rebaptized because the doctrine of Sabellius that there was but one person in the Trinity had infected their baptismal form. The two sects sprung from Paul of Samosata, who denied Christ's divinity, likewise conferred invalid baptism. They were the Paulianists and Photinians. Pope Innocent I (Ad. Episc. Maced., vi) declares that these sectaries did not distinguish the Persons of 'the Trinity when baptizing. The Council of Nicaea (can. xix) ordered the rebaptism of Paulianists, and
the Council of Arles (can. xvi and xvii) decreed the same for both Paulianists and Photinians.

There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts, xix) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s mime: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts, x, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ”. Those who were converted by Philip (Acts, viii) “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins” (Acts. ii). [owing] to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albert us Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, Hold also that such baptism would he valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms “in the name of Jesus”, “in the name of Christ”, either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the Trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts, xix) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: “In whom then were you baptized?” This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them.

The authority of Pope Stephen I has been alleged for the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only. St. Cyprian says (Ep. ad Jubaian.) that this pontiff declared all baptism valid provided it was given in the name of Jesus Christ. It must be noted that the same explanation applies to Stephen’s words as to the Scriptural texts above given. Moreover, Firmilian, in his letter to St. Cyprian, implies that Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person has been baptized “with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost”. A passage that is very difficult of explanation is found in the works of St. Ambrose (Lib. I, De Sp. S., iii), where he declares that if a person names one of the Trinity, he names all of them: If you say Christ, you have designated God

the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and him Who was anointed Son, and the Holy Ghost in whom He was anointed.” This passage has been generally interpreted as referring to the faith of the catechumen, but not to the baptismal form. More difficult is the explanation of the response of Pope Nicholas I to the Bulgarians (cap. civ; Labbe, VIII), in which he states that a person is not to be rebaptized who has already been baptized “in the name of the Holy Trinity or in the name of Christ only, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (for it is one and the same thing, as .St. Ambrose has explained)”. As in the passage to which the pope alludes, St. Ambrose was speaking of the faith of the recipient of baptism, as we have already stated, it has been held probable that this is also the meaning that Pope Nicholas intended his words to convey (see another explanation in Pesch, Frsrlect. Dqgm., VI, no. 389). What seems to confirm this id

 

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9 (KJV 1900)

The Apostles must have understood this. But most are too steeped in Catholic Traditions to even want to know the truth. The more you know about Christ, the more sense it makes to follow the Apostles.

 

Not just Lutherans, but Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterians, UCC, Catholics, and Orthodox and others. 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism.'

 

Sure sounds like it