Baptismal Formula

[AeonJ]

These verses support the claim that the original Apostolic Christians of the Bible might not have baptized using the threefold formula of Matthew 28:19, but rather baptized simply by invoking the name of Jesus.

(Acts 2:38-41 KJV)

(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)

(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

(Acts 10:44-48 KJV)

(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)

(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptizedin the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

(Acts 22:16 KJV)

(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

I was also given these historical notes to consider... Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the triune name (Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Baptism into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

So... was water baptism originally performed by simply invoking the name of Jesus? Or did the original Christians of the NT baptize using the threefold formula commonly used today?

Thanks,

~AeonJ~

(I'm borrowing from another's question on another board here....

http://www.christian...s.com/t7594805/)

Edited September 23, 2011 by AeonJ

[LeSellers]

You forgot one:

16 Then the eleven went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Enjoy,

Lehi

[AeonJ]

You forgot one:

Enjoy,

Lehi

not really check the beginning of the post.

[LeSellers]

not really check the beginning of the post.

Not quoted, but, if this is an addition, it seems the sola scriptura folks gots a problem.

Lehi

[Jesterss]

Not quoted, but, if this is an addition, it seems the sola scriptura folks gots a problem.

Lehi

How is that a problem? He does not say to physically use water and dunk them in the river or body of water. Simply says teach them, baptizing them in the name of the father and son and holy ghost. Teaching to observe all things I command of you.

[LeSellers]

How is that a problem? He does not say to physically use water and dunk them in the river or body of water. Simply says teach them, baptizing them in the name of the father and son and holy ghost. Teaching to observe all things I command of you.

"Baptize" meant (and means) nothing other than "immerse". John immersed in Jordan (water), Candace's eunich was baptized in water. Again and again, the baptisms of the New Testament were in water. Unless a different, metaphoric, medium is explicitly noted (e.g., baptism of fire), only "water" is a reasonable intepretation.

And, since we are to "obey all things" He commanded us, it seems that only obedience (actions) is acceptable. It's moer than merely acknowledgement, m ore than faith alone.

Lehi

Edited September 23, 2011 by LeSellers

[Jesterss]

"Baptize" meant (and means) nothing other than "immerse". John immersed in Jordan (water), Candace's eunich was baptized in water. Again and again, the baptisms of the New Testament were in water. Unless a different, metaphoric, medium is explicitly noted (e.g., baptism of fire), only "water" is a reasonable intepretation.

And, since we are to "obey all theings" He commanded us, it seems that only obedience (actions) is acceptable. It's moer than merely acknowledgement, m ore than faith alone.

Lehi

One can be immersed in their school work. One can be immersed in the intellectual thought of religion, such as you and I. Jesus tells us when talking to the samaritan woman at the well that those who drink his water will not be thirsty again, is he literally saying the water that he will pull from the well with his bucket? No, he's talking about the water of the truth and spirit and belief in him, his words, the gift that fulfills. So yes a metaphoric medium was expressed.

[volgadon]

These verses support the claim that the original Apostolic Christians of the Bible might not have baptized using the threefold formula of Matthew 28:19, but rather baptized simply by invoking the name of Jesus

You mean that according to the author of Acts they used a different formula.

[altersteve]

One can be immersed in their school work. One can be immersed in the intellectual thought of religion, such as you and I. Jesus tells us when talking to the samaritan woman at the well that those who drink his water will not be thirsty again, is he literally saying the water that he will pull from the well with his bucket? No, he's talking about the water of the truth and spirit and belief in him, his words, the gift that fulfills. So yes a metaphoric medium was expressed.

No, Jesus taught that we are to be baptized by water. The New Testament is very clear about that. Citing the metaphor that Jesus used when talking to the woman at the well isn't going to convince us otherwise.

[LeSellers]

One can be immersed in their school work. One can be immersed in the intellectual thought of religion, such as you and I. Jesus tells us when talking to the samaritan woman at the well that those who drink his water will not be thirsty again, is he literally saying the water that he will pull from the well with his bucket? No, he's talking about the water of the truth and spirit and belief in him, his words, the gift that fulfills. So yes a metaphoric medium was expressed.

Exactly: a metaphoric medium was expressed, and it was expressed explicitly. None of your examples would make any sense without identifying the medium, yet, with water, the medium is understood: it need not be expressed explicitly (although it can be).

Baptism is a ceremony, an ordinance, as well. This is also implicit in the words of Jesus in Matthew 28. He commanded His Apostles to baptize" in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. It was an action, not a passive event. The Apostles had to do something (immerse the candidate in water) and do it by means of the Priesthood.

So important was this action that, when Paul ran across twelve men (and their families) in Ephesus who had been (or at least thought they had been) baptized, but obviously not by a Priesthood holder, he had to rebaptize them, in spite of their being "believers".

Lehi

[LDSGuy]

The baptismal prayer encompasses all that is being discussed here and is outlined in 3rd Nephi chapter 11 (at least from the LDS perspective).

Verse 25. Having authority given me of Jesus Christ (D&C, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ), I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Verse 24 talks about standing in the water with them, and verse 26 talks about immersing them in the water.

Baptizing them in the name of Jesus Christ defines the authority (the priesthood) by which you baptized them. In all ordinances we state the authority by which we do something, whether its specifically mentioning the priesthood or not, such as baptismal and sacramental prayers.

Then the statement that the person is being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. After which the person is immersed in water.

The Godhead and baptism might be associated by the following scripture.

1 John 5:7-8. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Just throwing out ideals.

[LeSellers]

The Godhead and baptism might be associated by the following scripture.

1 John 5:7-8. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Except the Johannine Comma is a very late addition to 1 John. He didn't write, some monk centuries later put it in there.

Lehi

[Jesterss]

You mean that according to the author of Acts they used a different formula.

Do you not agree with the author of Acts?

[Jesterss]

No, Jesus taught that we are to be baptized by water. The New Testament is very clear about that. Citing the metaphor that Jesus used when talking to the woman at the well isn't going to convince us otherwise.

Based on my example though, it becomes unclear as to what he really means by water. Let's not detract from original poster though. He posted some rather intriguing references out there for you. My example was only an example that Jesus may not have just meant physical water, but also a spiritual water.

[volgadon]

Do you not agree with the author of Acts?

Not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. The NT is a collection of different writings, traditions, and to a certain extent, messages.

[Jesterss]

Not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. The NT is a collection of different writings, traditions, and to a certain extent, messages.

Jesus was part of the NT.

Still failing to see your point of your comment about Acts.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Jesterss

[altersteve]

Based on my example though, it becomes unclear as to what he really means by water. Let's not detract from original poster though. He posted some rather intriguing references out there for you. My example was only an example that Jesus may not have just meant physical water, but also a spiritual water.

Jesus was talking about baptism both by water and by the Holy Spirit. It's not unclear when you have additional revelations to clarify what He meant.

[volgadon]

Jesus was part of the NT.

I don't think that I've suggested that teachings, saying, prophecies and deeds attributed to Jesus don't form part of the NT.

Still failing to see your point of your comment about Acts.

That all the references provided for that formula occur in a single book.

[Kenngo1969]

This thread reminds me of Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is."

[Cobalt-70]

These verses support the claim that the original Apostolic Christians of the Bible might not have baptized using the threefold formula of Matthew 28:19, but rather baptized simply by invoking the name of Jesus.

I agree that baptism was probably done originally in the name of Jesus. Even more originally, by proto-Christian Jews such as John the Baptist, there was probably no thought as to whose name it was under--obviously, it was in God's name. As the Trinitarian formulation was a relatively later development within Christianity, that probably came later.

So how does Mormon scripture deal with the contradiction between Matthew and Acts? When Joseph Smith translated 3 Nephi 11, he believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one person, and therefore, you can baptize in Jesus' name by baptizing in the name of the Trinity--they were one and the same. So Smith had no qualms, in 1831, in commanding people to be "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment." (D&C 49:13), even though the Book of Mormon specifies the invocation of the Trinity. In fact, in June 1829, probably very soon after 3 Nephi was translated, Smith gave a revelation saying, "And they are they who are ordained to baptize in my name, according to that which is written; and you have that which is written before you; wherefore, you must perform it according to the words which are written" (in 3 Nephi 11, which, by the way is different than the formulation later given in D&C 20). So to Smith, invoking the name of the Trinity was exactly the same as invoking the name of Jesus, because he thought the Trinity was Jesus.

Unfortunately, these LDS scriptures cause just as much of a quandry for modern tritheistic Mormons as does the apparent conflict between Matthew and Acts. My sense is that most Mormons today reconcile this by taking the baptismal prayer as being a smorgasbord of the two formulations: "having been commissioned of Jesus Christ" takes care of the "in the name of Jesus," and then you have the Trinitarian formulation at the end. Belt and suspenders.

[altersteve]

When Joseph Smith translated 3 Nephi 11, he believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one person, and therefore, you can baptize in Jesus' name by baptizing in the name of the Trinity--they were one and the same.

CFR. I find it curious how you could say this. If you are a believing member of the Church as you profess to be, then I'm sure you believe that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph, and would agree that while he was translating the Book of Mormon he understood that they are separate and distinct from one another.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost being "one and the same," or "one person," is not the teaching of the Trinity, anyway.

Edited December 14, 2011 by altersteve

[Cobalt-70]

CFR. I find it curious how you could say this. If you are a believing member of the Church as you profess to be, then I'm sure you believe that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph, and would agree that while he was translating the Book of Mormon he understood that they are separate and distinct from one another.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost being "one and the same," or "one person," is not the teaching of the Trinity, anyway.

Nor was Joseph Smith's earliest understanding of God. His view was most consistent with modalism/Sabellianism (Lindgren 1986, http://content.lib.u.../dialogue,16645, pp. 72-73; Vogel, http://signaturebook...ary.org/?p=9418, p. 22), although it was similar enough to Trinitarianism that it has been called "essentially Trinitarian" (Alexander 1980, https://www.sunstone...s/022-24-33.pdf, pp. 24-25) or "layman's Trinitarianism" (K. Widmer, ''Mormonism and the Nature of God'' McFarland: 2000, pp. 30, 59); Kirkland 1984, https://www.sunstone...s/044-36-44.pdf, p. 37; see also Kirkland 1986, http://content.lib.u.../dialogue,16653,p. 77)

As to the reference to Smith's first vision, keep in mind that this vision, in the form you are referring to, was not written down until 1838, after Smith had had almost two decades to reflect on the meaning and content of that vision, and well after Smith came to understand the Father and the Son as being two distinct beings. Can you remember the precise details of dreams you had 18 years ago? In earlier descriptions of his vision, he said he said he saw "the Lord" (which would be consistent with modalism even if he saw two images of people), or that he saw two "angels." Apparently, he wasn't quite sure of the precise identity of whom he saw in this vision until after years of reflection.

Plus, going back to the OP, if you carefully read 3 Nephi 11, it is clear that Joseph Smith believed that baptizing in the name of the Trinity was actually baptizing in the name of Jesus, because "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one." That Smith believed that the Father and the Son were one person is reflected many times in the Book of Mormon and early D&C revelations, and perhaps most explicitly in Mosiah 15:1-4 and Ether 3:14-15.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[altersteve]

Point taken with what you said about the First Vision, but my point was that Joseph never believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are "one person." They are "one," but they are not "the same." The three members of the Godhead being "the same" person is neither Trinitarian nor modalist teaching.

The passages in the Book of Mormon and D&C that talk about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost being "one" is perfectly consistent with the modern LDS doctrine. Mosiah 15:1-4 and Ether 3:14-15, for example, are saying that Jesus Christ is "the Father" in the sense that He is the Creator of the world, and in the sense that we become "born again" as His sons and daughters through faith. It is not saying that He is the same person as, or shares the same literal "substance" with, Heavenly Father.

I've seen people on here suggest that the description of God's oneness in the Book of Mormon is incompatible with the modern LDS doctrine, but I disagree entirely. I also (as an aside) continue to argue that the doctrine of the Trinity, when properly understood, is not as different from the LDS concept of the Godhead as many people may think.

Edited December 15, 2011 by altersteve

[Cobalt-70]

The passages in the Book of Mormon and D&C that talk about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost being "one" is perfectly consistent with the modern LDS doctrine. Mosiah 15:1-4 and Ether 3:14-15, for example, are saying that Jesus Christ is "the Father" in the sense that He is the Creator of the world, and in the sense that we become "born again" as His sons and daughters through faith. It is not saying that He is the same person as, or shares the same literal "substance" with, Heavenly Father.

I think what you are describing is a modern, anachronistic gloss on what Smith actually believed circa 1829. In modern terminology, this would be described as a "retcon." The literal text does not bear this out, and nobody who read these passages would have any reason to understand these passages metaphorically, rather than literally. Moreover, the passage in Mosiah 15:3, saying that Jesus is "the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God" does not make sense from a metaphorical perspective.

I also (as an aside) continue to argue that the doctrine of the Trinity, when properly understood, is not as different from the LDS concept of the Godhead as many people may think.

I would agree with that. Modern Mormon theology could very easily take part in the "social Trinity" dialogue that has been going on within mainstream Christianity. However, Mormonism has been so long divorced from, ignorant of, and even hostile to, mainstream Christian theology, that very few Mormons are equipped to take advantage of this development. Mormonism could at least come very close to entering the Christian theological orthodoxy, if only there were a widespread desire on the part of Mormons to do so.

[LDSGuy]

This is my opinion, but when it says they baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is what we do in the church. In the name of Jesus is the authority by which we baptize. We state, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ..." Hence we baptize in the name of Jesus, that is in his name or by his authority. Then we do as the Lord directs to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.