Baptizing in the "Name" of Jesus satisfies the Matt. 28:19 (titles) requirement.
Debate Rounds (3)
Luke also records a version of this great commission worded differently:(Lu 24:47, Jesus speaking) "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations,..."
Today, baptism (immersion) is widely practiced echoing Matt. 28:19, utilizing the title words "Father", "Son", "Holy Ghost". However, the primitive church in the book of Acts baptized in the Name of Jesus (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5 ), saying: "...the name of Jesus Christ ...Neither is there salvation in any other: for their is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:10, 12)
I therefore submit that the formula of baptism of the first church, as recorded in the book of Acts, was not errant; that baptism in the name of Jesus satisfies the Matthew 28:19 requirement for baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Basically your assumption that the early church baptized in the name of Christ (Christ alone) is just that; an assumption. When we actually look at a text by the early church fathers we see that they baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water." The Didache (7:1)
The Didache (a.k.a. The Teaching of The Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles) was an early Christian writing dating back to about 70 A.D.
Based on this, and the fact that the bible is a holy scripture which cannot contradict itself, I'd say that when the apostles say "in the name of Jesus Christ" they are simply alluding to "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". And you have to admit, the ladder is a bit of a mouthful compared to the first.
In my initial statement (Rd.1), I was careful to cite very specific Biblical references (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) substantiating my position; that water baptism was performed calling on the name of Jesus, specifically. These passages leave no question with regard to the invocative formula utilized, making my position anything but an "assumption", as you aver.
As you said: "the Bible is a holy scripture which cannot contradict itself". This statement implies a high regard for the Bible. I concur, and this is why I am loath to quickly dismiss or otherwise overlook the Biblical doctrinal standard in deference to other ambiguous, questionable, non-canonical writings. This is not to dismiss those writings, however, where they differ from the Bible, they err.
The name of Jesus satisfies the titles requirement because the man Jesus is Emmanuel (God with us)-Matt. 1:23. Also another verse says:, "... in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."- Col. 2:9. Then there is this:"God was manifest in the flesh,..."- ITim. 3:16.
The name of the Son...
Matt 1:21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:..."
The name of the Father...
Jn. 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name,..."(-Jesus)
The name of the Holy Ghost...
Jn. 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,..."(-Jesus)
Being baptized in the Jesus' Name is being baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This explains the Biblical record of the first church regarding their baptismal formula; that their practice did not contradict the commandment of Jesus, but fulfilled it.
You wrote: "In my initial statement (Rd.1), I was careful to cite very specific Biblical references (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) substantiating my position;" If anything these scripture passages undermine your position rather than substantiate it. Note : Acts 2: 38 says they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 8:16 they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 10:48 they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So let me ask you, which of these formulas do you baptize in? Because I find there are questions to which formula trumps one over the other.
Again you wrote: "Being baptized in the Jesus' Name is being baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This explains the Biblical record of the first church regarding their baptismal formula; that their practice did not contradict the commandment of Jesus, but fulfilled it." Talking about being a bit ambiguous, What authority do you have to claim this? Where do you make the leap from being baptized in Jesus' name to being baptized in the Trinitarian formula? Christ himself tells us how to baptize, you tell me something different. Whom am I to believe? Jesus, or you?
As far as the biblical record of the "first church" there is only one church that Jesus Christ established.
Matthew 16:18 "And I say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Unless of course you believe that the gates of Hell did prevail against it. Therefore making Jesus a liar. But I don't believe you think that. So Jesus established a church; that church still exists; and has existed since Jesus instituted it. Consequently this is why we can turn to the early church writings on baptism. So I would not be too quick to dismiss non-canonical writings considering the fact that this is where we get the canon of scripture. Nowhere in the bible does it list which books belong in the bible. We have to look outside of scripture to find them.
Now I am going to quote some writings from the early church fathers. If you want to dismiss the Didache, fine. But you'll also have to dismiss all of these:
Tatian the Syrian 170 A.D.
"...and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Hippolytus 215 A.D.
"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: "Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?" And he that is being baptized shall say: "I believe." Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: "Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?" And when he says: "I believe," he is baptized again. Again shall he say: "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?" The one being baptized then says: "I believe." And so he is baptized a third time"
Tertullian 216 A.D.
"and lastly, he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at each several mention of their names"
Origen 248 A.D.
"The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . . for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity"
The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 250 A.D.
" And Paul said, "We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost." After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ"
Cyprian of Carthage 253 A.D.
"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow"when Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?"
Eusebius of Caesarea 323 A.D.
" "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Cyril of Jerusalem 350 A.D.
"You were led by the hand to the holy pool of divine baptism, as Christ was carried from the cross to this sepulcher here before us [the tomb of Jesus at Jerusalem]. And each of you was asked if he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Athanasius 361 A.D.
" "Go ye and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity"
Augustine 400 A.D.
"Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has Christ for its authority, not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man"
I have given you writings from 70 A.D. to 400 A.D. that shows a cohesion of the Trinitarian formula for baptism. I believe you teach a new gospel. A false gospel. One that is not found in Christian history.
When, in the biblical narrative, commanded to be baptized in the "Name of the Lord" or "Name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost", this is not a contradiction in scripture from baptism in the name of Jesus. What if one were to say "be baptized in the name of the Savior" and then, the occurrences of the book of Acts, where they are baptized in the name of Jesus (or Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus), were referenced? Could we then deduce, that an error was NOT committed by Peter on the day of Pentecost when he said "... be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..." (Acts 2:38), or with Cornelius' household (Acts 10) or Paul in (Acts 19).
It's important to note that who you are referring to as the Rock of Matt. 16:18 was the very preacher on the day of Pentecost who said "... be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ..." (Acts 2:38)
The events that I referenced occurred from approximately 33 A.D. to 70 A.D.. Yours is the new/false gospel, found ONLY in "Christian history".
You say one thing and I say another. What does the bible tell us to do? Go to the church.
Matthew 18:15-17 "
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. "
Which church should we go to? That church would have to have been around for 2000 years. It would have to have been founded by Christ. Has your church been around for 2000 years? Was it founded by Christ, or by a man?
Because if it has been around for 2000 years, wouldn't you have historical evidence of it? Surly in the span of 2000 years ,one of your members actually wrote something down? Because if they didn't, and I contend they didn't, then you truly are preaching a new/false gospel.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by badbob 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to con because he had a lot of them and used them very well. He also had better arguments and won. Nice try pro. I think you did a good job and you will get better as you continue to debate.