Ministerial Development of the Trinitarian Mode of Baptism by Donald Bryan

• Report rights infringement
• published: 20 Sep 2017
• views: 108

In the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19, Jesus commanded that all believers be baptized. The necessity of baptism is again confirmed in Mark 16:16 and John 3:5. The apostles, to whom were given the authority and direction by Jesus, obeyed this commandment in the establishment of the original apostolic church, as recorded in the book of Acts. In all of the recorded cases (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) where the baptism command is fulfilled, the actual name of Jesus, along with the titles of Lord or Christ, is used. Nowhere in the New Testament was anyone ever baptized using the formula in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Yet a study will show that the major portion of Christianity today does not bap- tize the way the apostles did in the book of Acts. Where did the divergency begin? What is the correct mode of Baptism? The purpose of this paper is to show the results of a historical survey completed by the authors that concluded that the original apostolic baptism was done in the name of Jesus and that the tripartite formula was a post- apostolic development. Most church historians and theologians also agree that the bap- tism formula used today is not the formula used in the New Testament church. As German Scholar Edmund Schlink has stated, First of all there is the problem of the "trinitarian formula". Nowhere else does the New Testament speak of baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:. It speaks only of baptism upon (in) the name of Jesus Christ (with slight variations).... In that case, the baptismal command in its Mat- thew 28:19 form cannot be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the church.1 How did Christian baptism originate? This historical question cannot be answered simply by referring to Matthew 28:19, since this text presents inescapable difficulties for historical thinking. Nor do the New Testament writings provide any support for the assumption that the primitive church did not at first baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.2 Although the extant writings for the period 96 A.D. - 140 A.D., which represents the first post-apostolic period, are very limited, the glimpses do show baptism in Jesus name continuing as church doctrine. Clement of Rome who was a contemporary of Paul, wrote in 96 A.D. in his Epistle to the Corinthians, And now may the all-seeing God and Master of Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be His own people, grant to every soul over whom His magnificent and holy name has been invoked...3 Note the use and singularity of "His magnificent and holy name", which undoubtedly is the name of Jesus, that Clement refers to. In The Shepherd of Hermas, which dates around 120 A.D., Hermas writes, Before man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead, but when he has received the seal (baptism) he lays aside mortality and receives life.4 What was the name of the Son of God? Jesus! It's known that Hermas' writings were accepted by many of the ancient church leaders and read routinely in the church. In studying his writings, it is also obvious that he espoused only one God and not the Trinity. He writes, First of all believe that God is One, who created all things and put them in order.5 Furthermore, Hermas writes; They are such as have heard the word and were willing to be baptized in the name of the Lord; but considering the great holiness which the truth requires, have withdrawn themselves and walked again after their wicked lust.6 At this point in history, the extant writings continue to show baptism in Jesus name. They do not show the tripartite formula either as being practiced or written about. Many modern day historians agree with this conclusion. Wilheim Bousset writes in Kurios Christos, "it is still essen- tially a baptism in the name of Jesus".7 G. R. Beesley-Murray stated: There is not one example in the whole New Testament literature of a baptism taking place in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.8 Harry Wolfsan writes: Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as a later origin.9 E. Lohmeyer in his book, Das Evangelium des Atthaus, writes that Eusebius, Bishop of the church in Caesarea, frequently wrote Matthew 28:19 as: Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I command you.10 Lohmeyer states: The expression in my name referred to baptism in the name of Jesus.