Baptism in the Name of Jesus

Jimmy Akin explains why Acts of the Apostles refers to a "baptism of Jesus" instead of naming the normal trinitarian formula.

Jimmy Akin is an internationally known author and speaker. As the senior apologist at Catholic Answers, he has more than twenty-five years of experience defending and explaining the Faith.

Jimmy is a convert to the Faith and has an extensive background in the Bible, theology, the Church Fathers, philosophy, canon law, and liturgy.

[daleaustin]

Hmm. Then why in Acts 19, did Paul have the disciples of John re-baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus??

[nolongerconfuzed]

This was a terribly weak, unbiblical, and historically inaccurate answer.

[Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr]

They might have been in the full trinitarian formula? Yeah I don't think so. There are many many examples of baptism in the bible and yes they differ slightly but are all in the name of Jesus only.

[timothydirig]

The Roman Catholic Church Admitted To Changing The Baptism Formula Mathew 28:19

[thetachmoniteb]

Matthew 28:19 the key is baptize in the "Name" singular not name[s]. Christ command was to baptize in his name which in turn you will have the Father, Son, and the Spirit: the God of Israel.
Hence, the Apostles baptize in Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord: never in the name of the father son and holy Spirit.

[rykellim]

Thank you for the effort in this video... nevertheless, your pointers (Luke found it too troublesome, books were expensive etc) are simply too weak an argument against Jesus' name baptism. Would you be able to do a stronger, perhaps historical, defense of Trinitarian baptism?

[caleblisenbey]

I think the phrase you were looking for is “in my opinion” because that’s all that was!

[TheHappyH]

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME:
How Did The Early Church Interpret Christ’s Command In Matthew 28:19?
Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 “The early church baptized ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ until the second century.”
Schaff - Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Vol 1, page 435“The New Testament knows only the baptism ‘in the name of Jesus’ ”
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol.1, pg. 241 “The earliest form, represented in Acts, was simple immersion…in water, the use of the name of the Lord.”
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2 “Christian baptism was administered using the words, ‘in the name of Jesus’ (page 377).
“Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr” (page 389).
Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 “Baptism was changed from ‘the name of Jesus’ to words ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ in the 2nd century.”
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263 Here the authors acknowledged that the baptism “name” was changed by their church.
Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88 “It must be acknowledged that the threefold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus”
Scribner’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, Pg. 241 “The original form of words were ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’. Baptism into the Trinity was a later development.”
New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, pg. 377-378, 389 “Christian baptism was administered using the words ‘in the name of Jesus’. The use of a Trinity formula of any sort was not suggested in the early church history. Baptism was always in the name of the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, when the triune formula was used.”
A History of Christian Thought, Otto Heick, Vol.1, pg. 53 “At first baptism was administered ‘in the name of Jesus’, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.”

[prestonvaughn]

That was a most non-Biblical answer lol. A lot of “bent light and smoke” though. One Lord One Faith One Baptism... the Acts 2:38 way fulfills the MaT 28:19 commission. One Name

[Thomas-dwnb]

I like Jimmy, but I find these arguments rather weak. John's baptism was referenced by the gospel writers as "John's baptism", so why wouldn't Jesus' baptism be referenced as "Jesus' baptism" as opposed to "Baptism [or baptized] in the name of [the Lord] Jesus". And if brevity played a role in how a baptism was referenced in writing, wouldn't it have been preferable to just use the term "Jesus' baptism"?

[wjdyr]

Acts 2:38 is the fulfillment of Matt 28:19. To be baptized in the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus is to obey the commandment ordered by Jesus.

[josherdie]

The book of Acts NEVER mentions anyone ever being baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which are actually titles not names. There are only 4 times in the book of Acts where it tells us in whose name the people were to be baptized and that is the name of Jesus Christ. Acts Acts 2:38 (NKJV)
38 Then Peter said to them,  “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[christwillprevail]

Had nothing to do with the question but ur going against ur own church you stated “Multiple baptism formulas in the early church” yet ur church states (The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in paragraph 1240 that a proper form for administering baptism is “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”) Catholic answers website contradicting their videos

[TheHappyH]

[Gal 1:6-9 KJV] 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[TheHappyH]

Can you show me 1... just ONE other verse in the entire Bible that supports that? 2 Cor. 13:1 = "In the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established"... There are no other support scriptures that back up what you are saying. Actually ... scriptures for the Baptism formula as taught by all the Apostles (that walked with Jesus for 3 1/2 years and learned all they did from His own mouth... they taught, believed and practiced baptism (by IMMERSION) in the Name of Jesus! So for more "witnesses" in the scriptures: Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 4:12; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:47-48; Acts 19;2-6; Acts 22:16; Col. 3:17... etc...

[johnaustin]

Whenever you hold a religious dissatisfaction, you have but one thing to to the Church. What does the Church say? and What did the early Father of the Church do?

[joseventura]

Very non biblical is Jesus himself said do it like this then Peter did it another way bc he was lazy yet God blessed that baptism there’s no either or he said the “name” there are many Jesus’s but only one Jesus Christ! That’s why Peter understood (it was revelation!) Catholics made an error! There’s no place where they ever did baptize in the father son Holy Spirit wasn’t until Catholics changed it we all agree that the Bible makes no mistake so why would Peter go and dishonor or disobey Jesus! He didn’t!

[TheHappyH]

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA - Vol 2, Pg 263
Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. No one gave them authority to change it... We are warned to not "add or take away" from the Scriptures... The orignal mode was the right way ... In Jesus Name!

[TheHappyH]

Lame excuse that it was trying to shorten the verbiage. There is NO evidence of this. They never did use the Trinitarian formula… ever. Until the 3rd century… the Bible was finished in Circa AD 70. And therefore they all baptized in the only saving name of Jesus : Acts 4:12.

[TheHappyH]

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
11TH edition, (1910), Vol 2, Pg 365
The Trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] 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.


The evidence is overwhelming. This is obviously the way the apostles baptized in the first Church. Don't you think if you are going to be in Christ's Church, YOU should be baptized in the NAME of Jesus? "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Matthew 10:22