Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Religions
  5. / Religions A - Z
  6. / Christian Religions
  7. / Christian History

by TulsaDavid on October 14th, 2005

TulsaDavid

Question

Help answer this question below.

The Book of Acts records that the early church baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. They certainly must have understood Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Why didn't they baptize that way?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by Thom64 on October 19th, 2005

    Thom64

    Remember that to do something "in the name of" means essentially "by the authority of" (remember the phrase "stop in the name of the law?"). It is entirely possible that the writer of Acts reasonably assumed that the reader would know that anything done correctly "in Jesus' name" would be done according to Jesus' example and instructions and so felt no need to be more specific.

    I do not think we have enough information to really argue this one way or the other. Any position will be somewhat speculative.
    ____________
    Those who disagree with this understanding of "in the name of" should post your own answer defining your understanding of the phrase. Saying a name does not mean one is acting under the authority that person. Two people can say contradictory things or act contrary to each other and the will of the authority while invoking the name of the same authority. A third can truly speak the message of or do some task by that authority without "invoking" a name verbally. Which of the three is truly acting "in the name of" the authority?

    I do not really understand your disagreement. Saying the name of Jesus (invoking the name) does not prove you are acting or speaking "in his name" as many charlatans and heretics have demonstrated.

    Comments

    • Incorrect comparison. Whatever you do in WORD or DEED, do ALL in the name of Jesus Christ. The early church invoked His name.

      TulsaDavid

      by TulsaDavid on October 20th, 2005

    • Not entirely accurate.

      Answers101

      by Answers101 on March 30th, 2006

    • The onus is on proving that "in the name of" is NOT verbal. The "stop in the name of the law" argument has become an admitted ruse by top theologians, knowing it was devisive. In fact, most know the early church baptized only in the na

      TulsaDavid

      by TulsaDavid on October 4th, 2006

    • NO! Do you know what you are talking about?

      BTC123

      by BTC123 on December 19th, 2006

    • In the original Greek text the phrase, "in the name" as it appears in Matt. 28:19 means in "Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words", the Greek word, "onoma," translated "name" #3686, "in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying or resting on)". The meaning is that there is authority in the NAME...which is Jesus Christ. The authority to remit sins is His NAME. Acts 10:43 Peter preached remission of sins through His NAME: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through HIS NAME whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. V48: "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the LORD." (Acts 2:38) The noun itself, "name", is "that by which a person or thing is CALLED", which means a verbal action. The name of Jesus must be "called" over the person being baptized. In Acts 22:16 Paul was instructed to be baptized, "calling" on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, "calling" on the name of the Lord." A "name" implies authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc." Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." JESUS is the only saving name, and this NAME must be invoked verbally, or "called" upon, and we then are "called" by Christ's name or are identified with Him.

      springissprung

      by springissprung on May 11th, 2011

    • Given that the name of Jesus is pronounced very differently by people who speak different languages and can not be spoken at all by various physically impaired people... why would verbally "invoking" a name - which is to say vocalizing some sequence of sounds that may or may not resemble the rendering of that name in the original or any other language - make any sense or any difference? I am convinced God is not swayed by any series of sounds the mouth of a human makes, and therefore, the understanding of the phrase "in the name" that requires making a sequence of sounds is inconsistent with the character of God and the way He interacts with humans.

      Thom64

      by Thom64 on May 11th, 2011

    6 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading The Book of Acts records that the early church baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. They certainly must have understood Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Why didn't they baptize that way?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company