Discussion on correct method for baptising
The initial question posed was the following:
What is the correct mode of baptizum & what formula & name(s) should be used?
My first response was the following:
Well, Matthew 28 is quite clear on which names must be used: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The correct mode of baptism is a slightly more complicated issue. The New Testament doesn't make explicit references to how baptism SHOULD be administered however we do know that many were baptised by full emersion. We also know from documents such as the Didache (written in the first century) that sprinkling or pouring of water was also permitted in the early Church as a valid form of baptism. Therefore, I think it's fair to conclude that both methods are valid forms of baptising.
A commentator responded:
"baptize means to immerse"
My response was the following which I believe to be an adequate rebuttal:
Hi #####, I believe that that is an oversimplification. Baptise certainly means immerse, but it doesn't only mean that. In Luke 11:38, for example, the same word is used to mean wash.
Certainly the early Christians didn't exclusively baptise by immersion. As I said, in the early Church both forms were acceptable and here is the direct quote from the Didache written in AD70:
7: Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm. If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.
Discussion on the correct formula for baptising
I have to say that whilst I had heard before of differing opinions regarding the valid method of baptising (immersion/pouring/sprinkling) I was not aware of a debate with regards to the formula that should be used; I assumed that it was always done "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. However, a later commentator indeed questions which formula should be used.
Below is our brief exchange beginning with the original posters follow-up comment:
Well, well, I put the comment up to see what you all think, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13 v1 "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word of God be established", there is only one ref for Father, Son & Holy Ghost, also in col 3 v17,it says "let everything you do weather in word or deed let all be done in the name of Jesus", this ref does not omit baptizum, on the other hand there are at least 10 refs in the new test for Jesus name baptizum.
I asked for clarification:
Hi #####, hope you're well. I'm a bit confused as to what you're proposing. Are you saying we should baptise using only the name of Jesus?
They responded:
ONLY JESUS NAME, Acts 2 v38.
My previous posts say why
After some further research my response was the following:
Hi #####. I find that you are still left with the "problem" of Matthew 28:19 with regards to your interpretation. You seem to dismiss it by saying it was only mentioned once. This is completely inadequate as Scripture isn't a democracy where the most references wins; it's the full and coherent Word of God. Therefore we must reconcile the verses.
First of all, I'd say that Matthew 28:19 is the only verse explicitly relating to how Baptism should be administered, rather than a reference to Baptism. When Baptism is described in Acts it is not prescriptive as was the case in Matthew 28. We can see this because in Acts Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" and at other times says "Jesus Christ" which would suggest that he wasn't so much concerned with prescribing the explicit formula that was used but rather was looking to say something else such as distinguishing Christian baptism from other Baptism's around at the time; such as John's, the Jewish one, pagan one etc.
For example, I can say that I was baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I could also say now that I repented and was baptised in the name of Jesus without an issue; ##### explained well how this isn't a contradiction. ***
I also think it would be wise to see how the early Church understood which baptism formula that should be used. The Didache document is just one of many examples that speak of the Trinitarian formula being used for baptism in the early Church: "Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..."
I'm still slightly surprised by the conversation, and further research would lead me to suggest that the second commentor is most likely a Jesus Only/Oneness Pentecostal. Whilst most of the commentators on this particular discussion, and the vast majority of Protestants in general, do indeed baptise correctly using the Trinitarian formula this type of conversation really affirms my faith in the One, True, Catholic Church as being the only infallible interpretor of Holy Scripture and the problem of Sola Scriptura as a foundation for doctrinal matters. It also highlights the need for good, solid Catholic apologetics (see 1 Peter 3:15).
God bless.
*** comment referred to: the right way Matthew 28:19 all the way Acts is just the same Because Jesus is God the fullness of the God head bodily dwells in the Son Jesus is the son God manifested himself into man Jesus is that Man JESUS IS GOD.
.jpg)