Trinitarian formula in baptism

[Maria Murray]

I've seen in a couple of sources now that in the very early church baptism was done "in the name of Christ" and was later replaced by the trinitarian formula. For example, according to Williston Walker's A History of the Christian Church, "Trinitarian formulae were frequently in use by the close of the first and beginning of the second century." (p. 55) This is a bit worrisome for me. Does anyone know how and why this change occured? I've also seen this argument used by those groups that baptize only in the name of Christ.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I would like to see a source for this. Holy Scripture gives witness that our Lord told His Apostles to: Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Why would we do anything other than what He told us to do?

[Maria Murray]

Dear Herman, thank you, I share your view. But from the standpoint of scripture alone, we also see these kinds of verses:

(Acts 2:38 KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 19:4-5 KJV)
(4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

As far as non-biblican sources, here is a number that was given to me, the only one I personally verified was Williston Walker's book (which is my history textbook for St. Stephen's course in Orthodox studies). Perhaps all these are rooted in some protestant sources? What then, is the correct source of information regarding early Christian baptism?

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Baptism 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."

[Michael Stickles]

I'll throw some speculations into the pot...

Baptism in the triune name is commanded in the Didache, which is variously dated anywhere from 50 to 110 AD, so the practice must have been an early development, quite possibly from the very beginning (no mention there of the number of immersions, but if immersion was not possible three pourings were specified). As to why it became standardized as the one practice, possibly we see a reason in Apostolic Canon #50:



50. If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the three immersions of the one admission, but one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deprived; for the Lord did not say, “Baptize into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Do ye, therefore, O bishops, baptize thrice into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ, and our constitution by the Spirit.


Assuming that single baptism into the name of Christ had once been considered valid practice (which isn't assured), it looks to me like this had somehow morphed into baptism into the death of Christ, with whatever additional theological baggage that implied. Hence, the standardization in the face of heresy.

When I was baptized in the Church of Christ, the formula was "Because of your confession of faith, I am able to baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, that you may receive the gift of God's Holy Spirit." - then, immediately before immersion - "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." I wonder if the early church had a similar practice - both the name of Jesus and the Trinitarian formula (given that both are mentioned in Scripture) - but later emphasized three immersions and the Trinitarian formula as a repudiation of whatever heresy led to canon 50. After all, the Trinitarian form still baptizes in the name of Jesus ("the Son"), just not in His name alone.

No mention in canon 50 of one immersion with the Trinitarian formula, so apparently that form no longer existed (assuming, of course, that it ever did in the first place).

(Stepping down off my speculation soapbox now, and looking around for someone who actually knows what they're talking about and can straighten me out on this...)

In Christ,
Mike

[Nina]

Dear Herman, thank you, I share your view. But from the standpoint of scripture alone, we also see these kinds of verses:

(Acts 2:38 KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 8:14-17 KJV)
(14) Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 19:4-5 KJV)
(4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Dear Maria,

When people mention these verses to you, then your counter-response (in a nice way of course!) maybe can be:

And which one comes first? The word of God (what Herman quoted), or that of the Apostle? God's word is the law. Although the Apostles also were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but we do not know how to interpret them correctly and that is why we make so many mistakes and err so much. That's why there are so many churches today in this world.

[Ty Pearson]

Dear Maria,

When people mention these verses to you, then your counter-response (in a nice way of course!) maybe can be:

And which one comes first? The word of God (what Herman quoted), or that of the Apostle? God's word is the law. Although the Apostles also were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but we do not know how to interpret them correctly and that is why we make so many mistakes and err so much. That's why there are so many churches today in this world.

Counter-response? To counter these passages is to counter what He inspired. We certainly don't want to do that do we? Matt. 28:19 needs to be read with Mark 16:15-17 and Luke 24:46-48. Please notice that Jesus says "In My name" and "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem". Jesus said in John 17:20 that we would believe on Him through their word. The writer of Hebrews tells us in Heb.2:3 that His words were confirmed unto us by them that heard Him. The apostles knew fully well what they were doing. The notion that we should accept writings outside of scripture to explain away scripture is absurd. Peter obeyed Christ in Acts 2:38.

[Father David Moser]

Counter-response? To counter these passages is to counter what He inspired. We certainly don't want to do that do we? Matt. 28:19 needs to be read with Mark 16:15-17 and Luke 24:46-48. Please notice that Jesus says "In My name" and "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem". Jesus said in John 17:20 that we would believe on Him through their word. The writer of Hebrews tells us in Heb.2:3 that His words were confirmed unto us by them that heard Him. The apostles knew fully well what they were doing. The notion that we should accept writings outside of scripture to explain away scripture is absurd. Peter obeyed Christ in Acts 2:38.

Here we have an excellent example of what is referred to as "sola scriptura" or scripture alone. The problem with this exegesis is that it depends on using only a part of the Truth, the revelation of Christ which was handed down to us by the apostles, both in that which is written and that which is taught by the spoken word ( 2Thess 2:15 ) Scripture alone only accounts for half of this formula. Paradoxically, those who use only scripture to interpret scripture are in fact ignoring the witness and express command of scripture to take into account the whole of the Holy Tradition. (but that's a discussion for another thread)

This type of reasoning is exactly the kind of thing that has led to doubt and division in the Church. The scripture is not written as an "instruction manual" to tell us how to do things, the scripture is instead a description of the life of the Church. That life did not end with the apostles, but it continues even today. These "cryptic" passages in Scripture and seeming contradictions are only cryptic and contradictory when they are considered apart from the context of the life of the Church. When we remove the Scripture from its proper place in the midst of Tradition, then we no longer have the whole of the life of Christ and the Church, but only the half.

In order to understand what exactly the apostles meant, we have only to look at the practice of the Church that they taught and handed down intact unto this day. The Church has always taught that we are to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. To say that the Church is wrong or has strayed from the Truth is to say that the gates of hell have indeed triumphed against the Church and that the life of Christ lay dormant and distorted. What is meant by these references to baptism in the name of Christ? Certainly we know from the life of the Church that this can only refer to Trinitarian baptism.

We must recall that the life of the Church is a single organic whole. Even in our own lives we have this example that the child of yesterday is no different than the adult of today and that through the life of the adult, the child is apparent. The life of the Church is our witness that what is referred to by "baptism in the name of Christ" is clearly the Trinitarian baptism. They are one and the same - not two practices which competed for acceptance in the apostolic times and the Trinitarian practice finally "won out" rather these are simply descriptions of what the apostles saw and preached and there was no need to explain the Trinitarian rite of baptism, but simply to refer to it by a descriptive short hand. The apostles did not need to describe in detail the process of baptism in their writings and letters - because those to whom the letters had been written had already experienced this themselves, they knew from experience what was being described. Even today, those of us in the Church who are the intended recipients of these letters know from our own experience of the life of the Church what is meant. It is only misunderstood by those who have not experienced this life and therefore speculate on what it is from their own fallen reasoning and understanding based on the descriptions of that life, rather than the Life itself.

So hold fast to the traditions that which you have been taught , both by written scripture and by the spoken word of the Apostles. Don't be confused or led astray by the fallen reasonings of men but hold fast to the life of the Church which is itself the life of the Holy Trinity into which we enter by baptism and in which we participate here and in the world to come.

Fr David Moser

[Leonard]

I think it illuminating for purposes of this discussion to consider the pericope in Acts 19 where Paul found 'certain disciples' and asked them: "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"

They replied: "Why we've never even HEARD of any 'Holy Ghost!"

To which Paul rejoins interrogatively: "Then how were you baptized?"

The interchange is a very strong indication that a Trinitarian Baptismal Formula was in common usage in the mid 1st century.....

[Nina]

Counter-response? To counter these passages is to counter what He inspired. We certainly don't want to do that do we?

I meant that since God Himself told to the Apostles this:



Holy Scripture gives witness that our Lord told His Apostles to: Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) (Borrowed from Herman's post to which I was referring before)


These groups that baptize only in the name of Christ need not to look further for starting to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity.

[Nicolaj]

The denial of the use of the Trinitarian formula in baptism is strongly connected with the lost and the denial of the Holy Trinity outside the Orthodox Church.

In a way to justify this denial, many misled unbelievers try to find and create apologies for their heresies spread over the earth. And they do this with great energy and lots of fantastic constructs of ideas.

The lost of the Trinity outside Orthodoxy also means lost of clear sight on the Truth. There is just one Truth in this is only to be found in the Orthodox Church.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj, on the feast of Alexander Nevsky, who defeated with help from the Holy Trinity the enemies of Orthodoxy again and again!

[Kosta]

We probaby dont have enough historical material to reconstruct what formulas may or maynot have been in use that eventualy fell out of use. Whatever the formula used, the early Church quickly developed into the direction of a trinitarian formula. If the church in Acts did indeed baptize in the name of Christ only it does not preclude that it was not done in triple immersion. Paul teaches we are baptized unto his death, and the early church always associated this with Jonah and the whale. Jonah was three days and nights in the belly of the whale etc.

While the book of Acts teaches that the believers were baptized in the name of Jesus, the epistles of Paul which predate Acts uses the phrase "into Christ" with "name" being omitted.

Gal 3.27- "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."


Rom 6.3- "Or do you not know that as many of us were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

In 1Cor 10.2 When Paul speaks of the crossing of the hebrews thru the red sea he says ..."all were baptized into Moses".

In the gospel of John, Jesus and his disciples baptzed, but into what and/or whose name is absent (4.2, 3.22). Its unlikely Jesus while alive baptized into his own name, my speculation based on the fact that one aspect of baptism has traditionally been understood as entrance into the kingdom, into his Church, and that Jesus came to preach the "Kingdom of God". Luke 4.43, 9.2 Matt 4.23, 12.28 all have the same elements as the commission: to send out, make disciples, baptise and heal along with the aspect of the Kingdom of God. Thus a baptism into the Kingdom of God (CF. 1Cor12.13) or closely associated to it would be plausible during the earthly ministry.

There is only ONE baptism but there may have been differing understandings in differing communities as Heb 6.2 "of the doctrines of baptisms(plural), of laying on of hands..."

The use of the trinitarian formula in the gospel of Matthew assumes that the community for which this gospel was originally written for (antioch ?), used this baptismal formula and were familiar with it. Especially since the author of the gospel historically places the command on Jesus lips.

In the baptism of Jesus at the hands of the Baptist, the Trinity was revealed, yes, perhaps it may have taken some time to realize this miracle and what it revealed. Regardless of what practises may have taken place in the opening decades of the Church, by the close of the first century the trinitarian formula became the standard formula as attested to by the Didache.