DrunkNtheSpirit
07-01-2005, 06:14 PM
455.1 (http://forums.delphiforums.com/goldblack/messages?msg=455.1) What does this verse mean? Or should I say what does this verse not mean?
Catholic/Trinitarian Christianity has always proclaimed that this verse teaches the trinity- the concept that God is three persons in one- the triune God'hence you must be baptized in the name of the trinity.
Can this verse be interpreted another way? Does one have to read into this verse, the concept, that God is a Trinity? Does this verse contradict Acts 2:38?
Presented here are various expositions over the centuries, in regard to this verse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus,
2nd Century
"In the name of Christ, there is understood he who has anointed, and he himself who is anointed, and the unction itself wherein he is anointed."
17th Century:
"Tis to declare we will admit nothing of no other thing as a part of our Religion, but what proceeds from these, that is, nothing but what is commanded by God, or the father, and has been delivered by his son the Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed externally by the miracles, and internally with the witness and testimony of the spirit, that is, of the power and inspiration of God. Nothing therefor can be inferred from this text, for the Godhead of the son or spirit.
17th Century
Hugo Grotius
So that our saviours words amount to thus much: Initiating them into the confession and obedience of God the father; and of the Lord Jesus Christ the son of the father; and of the holyspirit the Advocate and guide of all truth.
Dr. Nathaniel Lardner
17th Century
It cannot be reasonably supposed that our Lord would command his apostles to begin with teaching any mysterious doctrine to their converts. The design of the words is this:that they should teach men to recieve and profess the doctrine which Jesus had taught with authority from God the father, and confirmed by miracles done by the finger, the power, or the spirit of God. Accordingly we are assured in Acts 2:38 and other verses in Acts that men were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or into his name; which imports the same as being baptized into the belief that Jesus is Christ, the son of God; or that he taught by divine authority.
Joseph Priestley
1733-1804
It does not appear that the apostles understood that these particular words were always to be pronounced at baptism; for, whenever this rite is spoken of in the book of Acts, baptism is always said to be administered in the name of Christ only. Afterwards, great virtue was supposed to attend the pronunciation of these words. And therefore,they are annexed to all the seven sacraments, as they are called, of the Church of Rome. It is therefore certainly far better, in order to avoid superstition, to express the same meaning of the words, and to baptize as the apostles did, in the name of the Christ, or into the Christian religion, as that religion which was the gift of God by Jesus Christ, confirmed by miracles, or the holyghost.
George W. Burnap
19th Century
But you note that it is not asserted that each one of these is God, or that they all three are one God. There is then, no Trinity of persons asserted, and of course, there is none to explain away.
I believe the last quote sums it all up. There was never a concept of trinity to begin with, so there is no trinity to explain away! The apostles had no concept of a trinity therefore they had no need to baptize people with a triadic formula to honour a triune God.
Thus, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as shown in Acts 2:38 is performed in accordance to Christ's commandments in Matthew 28:19.
Christ fully embodies the creative and saving activity of God, that God in all his fullness was in him, that he represents and manifests all that God is in his outreach to men.
Catholic/Trinitarian Christianity has always proclaimed that this verse teaches the trinity- the concept that God is three persons in one- the triune God'hence you must be baptized in the name of the trinity.
Can this verse be interpreted another way? Does one have to read into this verse, the concept, that God is a Trinity? Does this verse contradict Acts 2:38?
Presented here are various expositions over the centuries, in regard to this verse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irenaeus,
2nd Century
"In the name of Christ, there is understood he who has anointed, and he himself who is anointed, and the unction itself wherein he is anointed."
17th Century:
"Tis to declare we will admit nothing of no other thing as a part of our Religion, but what proceeds from these, that is, nothing but what is commanded by God, or the father, and has been delivered by his son the Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed externally by the miracles, and internally with the witness and testimony of the spirit, that is, of the power and inspiration of God. Nothing therefor can be inferred from this text, for the Godhead of the son or spirit.
17th Century
Hugo Grotius
So that our saviours words amount to thus much: Initiating them into the confession and obedience of God the father; and of the Lord Jesus Christ the son of the father; and of the holyspirit the Advocate and guide of all truth.
Dr. Nathaniel Lardner
17th Century
It cannot be reasonably supposed that our Lord would command his apostles to begin with teaching any mysterious doctrine to their converts. The design of the words is this:that they should teach men to recieve and profess the doctrine which Jesus had taught with authority from God the father, and confirmed by miracles done by the finger, the power, or the spirit of God. Accordingly we are assured in Acts 2:38 and other verses in Acts that men were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or into his name; which imports the same as being baptized into the belief that Jesus is Christ, the son of God; or that he taught by divine authority.
Joseph Priestley
1733-1804
It does not appear that the apostles understood that these particular words were always to be pronounced at baptism; for, whenever this rite is spoken of in the book of Acts, baptism is always said to be administered in the name of Christ only. Afterwards, great virtue was supposed to attend the pronunciation of these words. And therefore,they are annexed to all the seven sacraments, as they are called, of the Church of Rome. It is therefore certainly far better, in order to avoid superstition, to express the same meaning of the words, and to baptize as the apostles did, in the name of the Christ, or into the Christian religion, as that religion which was the gift of God by Jesus Christ, confirmed by miracles, or the holyghost.
George W. Burnap
19th Century
But you note that it is not asserted that each one of these is God, or that they all three are one God. There is then, no Trinity of persons asserted, and of course, there is none to explain away.
I believe the last quote sums it all up. There was never a concept of trinity to begin with, so there is no trinity to explain away! The apostles had no concept of a trinity therefore they had no need to baptize people with a triadic formula to honour a triune God.
Thus, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as shown in Acts 2:38 is performed in accordance to Christ's commandments in Matthew 28:19.
Christ fully embodies the creative and saving activity of God, that God in all his fullness was in him, that he represents and manifests all that God is in his outreach to men.