Baptise in Jesus' name?

[Christian2]

Acts 2:38," 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."
Acts 8:16, "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 22:16, "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

vs: Matthew 28:19
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Did Jesus' disciples ever baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

If not, why not?

Thanks.

[Canuckster1127]

I don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

[Christian2]

I don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

Do you believe Matthew 28:19 was the baptism formula approved by Jesus and the rest meant that Jesus was giving the disciples the authority to baptise by His name?

Please see this article:

http://carm.org/religious-movements/one ... jesus-name

Clip: The phrase, "in the name of the Lord" is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, "Stop in the name of the Law!". We understand that the "name of the Law" means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with baptism "in Jesus' name." To baptise in Jesus' name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus.

Thanks.

[Canuckster1127]

I'm familiar with the history, the arguments and the differing views. Frankly, I think focusing upon the verbal authority invoked and making that an issue to the point of one point of view ruling out the other point of view as invalid, is no more valid than imagining that these phrases invoke a form of "magic" that themselves are of any real power or significance. Baptism, in my understanding, is a public declaration by someone of a spiritual reality that has already taken place. It's important, but it is not foundational to somone's salvation. It is subsequent to salvation taking place.

When Christians become focused and worked up over which term is used in the midst of a ceremonial baptism, then in my opinion, we're no longer free from the law, all we've done is replace the law of the Old Testament with a new form of legalism based upon the New Testament. I think it's sad when grace is set aside in this manner. The Bible is not a law book or some legal tome and we are not holy lawyers commissioned to argue and determine which way something has to be done to be valid. If it were, then there was no need for Christ to come. We had that in many forms of Judaistic Phariseeism and all God would have had to do is just leave it alone and let it continue.

[Christian2]

I'm familiar with the history, the arguments and the differing views. Frankly, I think focusing upon the verbal authority invoked and making that an issue to the point of one point of view ruling out the other point of view as invalid, is no more valid than imagining that these phrases invoke a form of "magic" that themselves are of any real power or significance. Baptism, in my understanding, is a public declaration by someone of a spiritual reality that has already taken place. It's important, but it is not foundational to somone's salvation. It is subsequent to salvation taking place.

When Christians become focused and worked up over which term is used in the midst of a ceremonial baptism, then in my opinion, we're no longer free from the law, all we've done is replace the law of the Old Testament with a new form of legalism based upon the New Testament. I think it's sad when grace is set aside in this manner. The Bible is not a law book or some legal tome and we are not holy lawyers commissioned to argue and determine which way something has to be done to be valid. If it were, then there was no need for Christ to come. We had that in many forms of Judaistic Phariseeism and all God would have had to do is just leave it alone and let it continue.

Are you aware that some think Matthew 28:19 is not original? I find no evidence was not originally a part of Matthew's Gospel.

[Canuckster1127]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm aware of the arguments against Matt 28:19 and I don't find them convincing. They are inferential and start with the assumption that the trinity was a later, added element and in that regard they circle back to confirm the presumption.

[Bill McEnaney]

I don't believe they're mutually exclusive.

Neither do I. Jesus and God the Son are the same Person. So if you baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, you imply that you're baptizing in Jesus' name.

[domokunrox]

I wanted to chime in on this because I actually had this argument with lots of different people. Some of them were rather stubborn, but I did get quite a few to come around.

If you decide to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the father, the son, and holy spirit. They are both acceptable. Any kind of argument for or against a specific name in which to perform a baptism completely misses the point in a baptism.

Hear the good news, believe it, repent, confess Jesus is his savior, and be born again in the washing of regeneration and renewing by the holy spirit. John 3:5 and Titus 3:5

An argument with anyone on what name to do this in is plain silly. I mean, I seriously had a dialog like this with one of them.

You can't baptize in the name of the father, the son, and holy spirit. If I wrote you a check and wrote son, then its not valid. You're a son, im a son, someone else is a son. Same with father.

I answered

So, are you THE father? No. THE son? No. Are you the identity of THE Holy spirit? No. Are you all 3 of them? No.

Yeah, seriously.

My own opinion here is that I favor the father, the son, and holy spirit because its much more visual. Bringing the person into the water when you declare "the son" is very visual to show the sinner going into the burial process. Bringing the person out of the water with "holy spirit" goes very well to heaven opening and the holy spirit coming down upon them.

I also of course hug my new brother/sister in Christ at that point and we can then celebrate.

Again, this is just how I like to perform it.