11,141
edits
The Baptismal Formula: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(→Answer) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
=The Question= | =The Question= | ||
We have received a number of questions that specifically relate to the baptismal | We have received a number of questions that specifically relate to the baptismal formula (the words said over the person being baptized). Here is an amalgam of some of the questions we have received: | ||
:''No one was ever baptized by the Apostles in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If it was permissible then surely there would be some record in scripture that baptism could or should be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But this does not exist. | :''No one was ever baptized by the Apostles in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If it was permissible then surely there would be some record in scripture that baptism could or should be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But this does not exist. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
#water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only. | #water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only. | ||
#Baptism is "''the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone to heaven and is at the right-hand side of God, ruling over all angels and heavenly authorities and powers.''<ref>American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1992), 1 | #Baptism is "''the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone to heaven and is at the right-hand side of God, ruling over all angels and heavenly authorities and powers.''<ref>American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1992), 1 Peter 3:21–22.</ref> | ||
#Both the Acts 2:38 formula and the Matthew 28:19 formula are acceptable because they are both based in scripture. | #Both the Acts 2:38 formula and the Matthew 28:19 formula are acceptable because they are both based in scripture. | ||
#While baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (or a similar variant) may be the preferred method of baptism for some, those espousing the Acts 2:38 formula cannnot exclude those baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19. If someone comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith, and is then baptized in the Matthew 28:19 formula as shown in example #2 above, there is no basis to excluded from the church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7.</ref> | #While baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (or a similar variant) may be the preferred method of baptism for some, those espousing the Acts 2:38 formula cannnot exclude those baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19. If someone comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith, and is then baptized in the Matthew 28:19 formula as shown in example #2 above, there is no basis to excluded from the church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7.</ref> | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
===Example #1=== | ===Example #1=== | ||
I attended a baptismal service in Hawaii a number of years ago and was asked to assist in the baptism of several new converts. I was astounded by the baptismal | I attended a baptismal service in Hawaii a number of years ago and was asked to assist in the baptism of several new converts. I was astounded by the baptismal formula that this pastor used. As the individual was immersed in water (in the ocean) the pastor said these words: | ||
:''I now baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I baptize you in the name of Adonai Yeshua HaMashiach. | :''I now baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I baptize you in the name of Adonai Yeshua HaMashiach. | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
If one leaves the message and does not re-examine all of their "message tainted" beliefs, it is likely they will be at odds with some of the beliefs that the church has always held. | If one leaves the message and does not re-examine all of their "message tainted" beliefs, it is likely they will be at odds with some of the beliefs that the church has always held. | ||
According to oneness teaching, the only valid baptism is in “Jesus’ name” and not “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Trinitarian baptism is seen as a Roman Catholic error that was forced on the church in the | According to oneness teaching, the only valid baptism is in “Jesus’ name” and not “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Trinitarian baptism is seen as a Roman Catholic error that was forced on the church in the Nicaean Creed in A.D. 325. Therefore, anyone who received Trinitarian baptism was not fully Christian.<ref>Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, 1901–2001 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 141.</ref> | ||
Please go to [[Did William Branham Teach Oneness?|our article on Oneness theology for detailed information on specific doctrinal issues]]. | Please go to [[Did William Branham Teach Oneness?|our article on Oneness theology for detailed information on specific doctrinal issues]]. | ||
| Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
When was the first person baptized in the Trinitarian baptismal formula? We don't know. But it was certainly hundreds of years earlier than the date proposed by William Branham. Could it have been that some were baptizing in the Trinitarian formula during the time of the disciples? That is definitely possible. Again, we just don't know and it is impossible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. | When was the first person baptized in the Trinitarian baptismal formula? We don't know. But it was certainly hundreds of years earlier than the date proposed by William Branham. Could it have been that some were baptizing in the Trinitarian formula during the time of the disciples? That is definitely possible. Again, we just don't know and it is impossible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. | ||
==Why did the baptismal | ==Why did the baptismal formula change?== | ||
If the primary formula for baptism changed, it was likely that it had to do with counteracting false teaching on the Godhead. | If the primary formula for baptism changed, it was likely that it had to do with counteracting false teaching on the Godhead. | ||