Why Does the Catholic church baptize using a Trinitarian formula (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) when Peter (whom the Catholic church claims to be the first Pope) clearly commanded to be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ?

(from the Catholic Bible)

Quote:Acts 2:38
'You must repent,' Peter answered, 'and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Paul also

Quote:Acts 19:5
4 Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance; but he insisted that the people should believe in the one who was to come after him -- namely Jesus.'
5 When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus

(May 18, 2015 at 7:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Ok, how do you compare the current understanding of such fields as history, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, politics... and physics with the religion's requirement of faith in a relatively powerful entity that could, if it so wished, present itself to every single thinking being on this planet and dispose of faith altogether, thus ending any and all animosity that exists and may come to exist due to divergences of belief?

There is no incompatibility. God created all those things and gave us the intellect with which to study his creation, etc.

However, if God WERE to reveal Himself in the fashion in which you suggest, such a revelation would be coercive.

---

(May 18, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Why Does the Catholic church baptize using a Trinitarian formula (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) when Peter (whom the Catholic church claims to be the first Pope) clearly commanded to be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ?

(from the Catholic Bible)

Quote:Acts 2:38
'You must repent,' Peter answered, 'and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Paul also

Quote:Acts 19:5
4 Paul said, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance; but he insisted that the people should believe in the one who was to come after him -- namely Jesus.'
5 When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus

Excellent question. You've had some training in theology? Here's my response:

Baptism in the Name of Jesus Only

"In the name of Jesus" is a type - not a formula. More on that in a moment.

If a police officer shouts to a fleeing bank robber, "Stop in the name of the law!", is he really only specifying the authority of one thing, "the law'? Or is it really the authority of:

1) the specific code of law written by politicians, 
2) the police department who enforce the law, 
3) the entire criminal justice system

that the officer is asserting? It's all of the above, right?

Catholics have been baptizing using the Trinitarian formula from the earliest days. There is a document of early Christian practices from about 50 AD called the DIDACHE (pronounced did-a-kay) that details how the early Christians baptized:

Quote:"In regard to baptism - baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm."

 The Didache is not inspired scripture, but it is a key piece of historical evidence about what the Church thought and did in the earliest days. 

So why does this verse in Acts say we should be baptizing in Jesus' name and not in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? It is made to offer a distinction from other baptisms that were occurring during the earliest days of Christianity. There were the baptisms done by followers of John the Baptist, baptisms done in Jewish liturgies, and baptisms done in pagan rituals. Here's a verse speaking of "John's Baptism":
 

Quote:Acts 19:3 
So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.

Paul specifically asks what type of baptism they had received. They had received "John's Baptism"; they had not received the baptism of Jesus.

By proclaiming baptisms be done "in the name of Jesus Christ", the inspired author of Acts was merely attempting to disassociate ourselves from the baptisms done by other sects.

It was not an instruction on how to baptize.

(May 18, 2015 at 7:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Seriously, what kind of proof would you find convincing, Jorm? Are you open to logical proofs?

I find logical proofs generally unpersuasive. Even when well-constructed, they lack the capacity to move the unconvinced. And I think that's not without good reason. I think one should be skeptical of logical proofs like the ontological or cosmological proofs. Too many grand principles are invoked with so little real world support. Would you find a logical proof of the imperfection of God persuasive? Probably not. That's just the nature of the beast.

Someone quoted the tale of the suffering servant from... Isaiah (?) recently. I must confess I was a bit shaken as it seemed a very unimpeachable example of prophesy. Then I read some other things that claim Isaiah was referring to Israel herself in the passage and some of the glamour faded. I should probably read the whole book to fairly judge it, but I won't. But I'm more moved by unexplainables in the bible than I am by any logical proof, or for that matter, the bulk of apologetics concerned with the historical reliability of the New Testament. Such arguments tend to dent easily, and lack the requisite final punch which something like proof of the resurrection would provide.

So, in a nutshell, I'm approachable, but I've started to tire of the slick word game apologetics which fill many of these debates.

If I became convinced by prophecy, I would be tempted. But I just left Hinduism, so I'm not up for converting to anything anytime soon.

(May 18, 2015 at 8:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 7:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Seriously, what kind of proof would you find convincing, Jorm? Are you open to logical proofs?

I find logical proofs generally unpersuasive.  Even when well-constructed, they lack the capacity to move the unconvinced.  And I think that's not without good reason.  I think one should be skeptical of logical proofs like the ontological or cosmological proofs.  Too many grand principles are invoked with so little real world support.  Would you find a logical proof of the imperfection of God persuasive?  Probably not.  That's just the nature of the beast.

Someone quoted the tale of the suffering servant from...  Isaiah (?) recently.  I must confess I was a bit shaken as it seemed a very unimpeachable example of prophesy.  Then I read some other things that claim Isaiah was referring to Israel herself in the passage and some of the glamour faded.  I should probably read the whole book to fairly judge it, but I won't.  But I'm more moved by unexplainables in the bible than I am by any logical proof, or for that matter, the bulk of apologetics concerned with the historical reliability of the New Testament.  Such arguments tend to dent easily, and lack the requisite final punch which something like proof of the resurrection would provide.

So, in a nutshell, I'm approachable, but I've started to tire of the slick word game apologetics which fill many of these debates.

If I became convinced by prophecy, I would be tempted.  But I just left Hinduism, so I'm not up for converting to anything anytime soon.

jorm-

One important thing to consider: Israel was a type of Christ. Therefore, the prophet Isaiah WAS speaking of Israel (which he was conscious of) and of Jesus (whom he knew nothing about) simultaneously.

(May 18, 2015 at 8:17 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: jorm-

One important thing to consider: Israel was a type of Christ. Therefore, the prophet Isaiah WAS speaking of Israel (which he was conscious of) and of Jesus (whom he knew nothing about) simultaneously.

I'm not persuaded by double fulfillment arguments.  The first prong generally fails as prophecy.  The second prong is then usually a stretch.

I'm not falling for your Jedi mind tricks!

(May 18, 2015 at 7:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Seriously, what kind of proof would you find convincing, Jorm? Are you open to logical proofs?

Logical proofs by themselves cannot prove that a god exists.

Logical syllogisms can be valid in form, but to actually prove their conclusions, they have to fed with sound premises.

Sooner or later the 'rubber has to hit the road' so to speak, and the premises have to be shown to be true. 

But if you are speaking of the well known logical proofs for the existence of god (Kalam, ontological, teleological, TAG, etc), they are all either invalid or unsound. So, they fail to prove their conclusions. 

(May 18, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If a police officer shouts to a fleeing bank robber, "Stop in the name of the law!", is he really only specifying the authority of one thing, "the law'? Or is it really the authority of:

1) the specific code of law written by politicians, 
2) the police department who enforce the law, 
3) the entire criminal justice system

that the officer is asserting? It's all of the above, right?

I would argue none of the above.
It's the Policeman's badge that provides the authority, all he needs to yell is "stop".
The "in the name of the law" part is unnecessary.

You try yelling "Stop in the name of the law!" and see how it works out.

(May 18, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Catholics have been baptizing using the Trinitarian formula from the earliest days. There is a document of early Christian practices from about 50 AD called the DIDACHE (pronounced did-a-kay) that details how the early Christians baptized:

Quote:[/color][/size]
"In regard to baptism - baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm."

 The Didache is not inspired scripture, but it is a key piece of historical evidence about what the Church thought and did in the earliest days. 

So Catholics baptize using the trinitarian formula because of tradition? What did Jesus say about tradition?

Quote: Wrote:Matthew 15:6
Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

As you know, Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize in the "NAME" of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. What is the name of the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"?

As you also know, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, So when Peter was asked what must be done to get into heaven, his reply was to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ"...... THAT is the KEY to heaven (for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. - Acts 4:12). Peter having a revelation of who Jesus Christ was, knew that Jesus WAS the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. As the Bible clearly states Jesus was the FULLNESS of the Godhead (Godhead being Father, Son and Holy Ghost) bodily.

Quote:Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Therefore by the tradition of baptizing using the trinitarian formula, the Catholic church makes that a baptism of "none effect".

(May 18, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

Quote:Acts 19:3 
So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.

Paul specifically asks what type of baptism they had received. They had received "John's Baptism"; they had not received the baptism of Jesus.

By proclaiming baptisms be done "in the name of Jesus Christ", the inspired author of Acts was merely attempting to disassociate ourselves from the baptisms done by other sects.

It was not an instruction on how to baptize.

The reason Paul commanded them to be re-baptized was because they were baptized unto repentance of sin, Jesus had not yet died for remission of sin. In order for them to receive the Holy spirit, they had to be baptized for remission of sin. Being baptized in the "tradition" of John the baptist shows that baptism longer had an effect.

Quote:Acts 19
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
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.

(May 18, 2015 at 10:44 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If a police officer shouts to a fleeing bank robber, "Stop in the name of the law!", is he really only specifying the authority of one thing, "the law'? Or is it really the authority of:

1) the specific code of law written by politicians, 
2) the police department who enforce the law, 
3) the entire criminal justice system

that the officer is asserting? It's all of the above, right?

I would argue none of the above.
It's the Policeman's badge that provides the authority, all he needs to yell is "stop".
The "in the name of the law" part is unnecessary.

You try yelling "Stop in the name of the law!" and see how it works out.

What is the basis for his authority, huggy? What is the badge a symbol of? EVERYTHING I wrote.

But that's just an analogy. Let's move on.

Quote:So Catholics baptize using the trinitarian formula because of tradition?

Of course. The Church was baptizing LOOOOOONG before the scriptures were written. However, they were baptizing based on the commandment they heard from Jesus in the Great Commission:

Matthew 28
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Quote:What did Jesus say about tradition?

Matthew 15:6
Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Amen! Catholics love that verse as we do all 73 books of inspired scripture. However, Jesus is making a reference to "traditions of men" which he condemns. If Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize using a trinitarian forumla in Mt. 28:19, that would be a GOD-given tradition and NOT a tradition of men, wouldn't it?

Now, a word about tradition. I could provide a long list of verses in support of tradition, but this one will suffice:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Here, Paul not only commend holding fast to tradition, but he also commends oral teaching in addition to written scripture.

And now, a question for you:

What is the pillar and ground of the faith for the believer in Christ Jesus, huggy?

(May 18, 2015 at 11:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Of course. The Church was baptizing LOOOOOONG before the scriptures were written. However, they were baptizing based on the commandment they heard from Jesus in the Great Commission:

Matthew 28
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Quote:What did Jesus say about tradition?

Matthew 15:6
Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Amen! Catholics love that verse as we do all 73 books of inspired scripture. However, Jesus is making a reference to "traditions of men" which he condemns. If Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize using a trinitarian forumla in Mt. 28:19, that would be a GOD-given tradition and NOT a tradition of men, wouldn't it?

This is a clear example of the misinterpretation of scripture, the Word of God is of no "private interpretation, you MUST let scripture interpret scripture. It is true that Jesus commanded to baptize in the "NAME" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Is Father a name?
What about Son? Holy spirit?
Those are not names but titles. I am a brother uncle and son, does that make me three different people (trinity)?

If none of those are names, then what is the NAME of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? It is Jesus Christ.

(May 18, 2015 at 11:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Now, a word about tradition. I could provide a long list of verses in support of tradition, but this one will suffice:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Here, Paul not only commend holding fast to tradition, but he also commends oral teaching in addition to written scripture.

Ok, provide the scripture where any apostle baptized using the trinitarian formula. They clearly baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the scripture you provided, the Catholic church should still be maintaining that tradition.

(May 18, 2015 at 11:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And now, a question for you:

What is the pillar and ground of the faith for the believer in Christ Jesus, huggy?

The Word of God.

(May 18, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 7:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Ok, how do you compare the current understanding of such fields as history, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, politics... and physics with the religion's requirement of faith in a relatively powerful entity that could, if it so wished, present itself to every single thinking being on this planet and dispose of faith altogether, thus ending any and all animosity that exists and may come to exist due to divergences of belief?

There is no incompatibility. God created all those things and gave us the intellect with which to study his creation, etc.

The question was not "science vs religion".... I threw politics in there to give you that hint.
I know that catholics are ok with science and have been keen to adapt to it.

The question delves deeper. The human psyche is a wonderful thing... full of complexities, but also with a lot of similarities between individuals.
Indoctrination works on the grand grand majority. Do you think there would be as many religious people, were it not for indoctrination of the young?
Why does indoctrination work? Because our psyche is so complex, it must learn a lot of things during childhood... and while learning, we implicitly trust our teachers, our caregivers, our mentors... If they convey the message of a divine entity, we incorporate it into our picture of the world.... just like we incorporate the notion that a particular fruit is poisonous, a certain pattern on a frog signals not to touch it, or the orange glow of the setting sun (at least in Portugal, signals nice weather for the next day.

If the information is truthful, or not, is irrelevant. It is considered true by the young brain and it becomes the future adult's faith.
Ever wonder why religionists speak so much about "truth" and so little about reality? It feels like you keep trying to convince others that some BS is true, when there is nothing hinting that way.

Anyway, onwards to more human psychological stuff, this time, touching on politics. Thirst for power. Every single major religion has been close to the ruling class.... which also touches another subject I mentioned, history.
Ever since Mesopotamia, with their pantheon taking center stage on any particular city, through the famous Egyptians where the pharaoh was considered a god among humans, the romans with their empire wide implementation of their preferred pantheon (first, Jupiter&co., then christianity), the arabian caliphate and islam... not to go into Chinese, japanese or even Aztec mythologies.
So, religion seems to be a tool to rule the people, in some societies, the most prominent tool, in others, merely an extra. But it's been there for millennia.
Present-day catholics follow (at least, most) the guidelines of the church, which leads to some friction with a few of the more recent secular developments, such as abortion, gay marriage, contraception, etc. In a way, catholics are being controlled by a central ruling class, their thoughts are being controlled. For the most part, this control is harmless, and that was probably its original intent - keep the people behaving orderly. But we must acknowledge that this control can take darker contours with the "us vs them" mentality that can easily lead a people into war. Such wars are recorded in the OT for jews, god's chosen people (vs the others that were not chosen), the qur'an again with muslims as god's chosen people (vs all the infidels)...

Now, to touch on another of the subjects I mentioned, the high class, as the implementers of the religion, must know that it's just a tactic. Considering all the religions that have been imposed on the people, the individuals responsible for that imposition either were delusional and fervently believed it themselves, or knew all too well that they were fooling the people, even if they convinced themselves that is was for the best (control people's collective behavior and keep them docile, but ready for war, if the rulers so desire).


So, on one side, we have easily impressionable minds, on the other, we have the desire to impress a particular message on all the people. Repeat, rinse, repeat.
The perfect recipe for the outstanding focus that religion has had on human societies.

And, of course, since we know that there have been and still are, lots and lots of religions, and most of them are mutually exclusive, then it stands to reason that, at most, only one is right. However, they all have that requirement of faith, which, as I pointed earlier, is a bit nagging.

So, knowing that religions exist to impose certain thoughts on the people (thus controlling them) and that the likelihood of any religion being right is near nil, how can you (or anyone else, but let's focus on you) honestly claim that your particular religion is true? (there's that word, again)

(May 18, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: However, if God WERE to reveal Himself in the fashion in which you suggest, such a revelation would be coercive.

Well, according to the story, Luke is Darth Vader's son.... oh, wrong story, sorry.
According to the story, there are several people who have had such coercive revelations and they all turned out ok...ish... Let's see:
- Abraham - there's a reason they're called abrahamic religions, huh?
- Moses - responsible for Easter holidays
- Satan - responsible for laboring pains and for snakes to crawl on their bellies
- Adam&Eve - Were doing ok, until they ate some fruit spurred on by satan - there's no justice in the world, even when it's god-administered.
- Mohamed - can we count him in?
- Jesus and his entourage - even with direct palpable evidence of miracle working, the guys just kept being amazed at each new feat of magic!


So, based on this track record, what's so wrong about providing every single person on Earth with palpable evidence of the existence of the magic-sky-daddy?
Results:
- no more religions. Only one, and it wouldn't be a religion, as it wouldn't require any faith, nor any preaching, nor any assembling in the temple - god is everywhere, and talks directly to anyone who requests or requires it.
- no more thought control imposed by the religions - it's no longer a "what would jesus do?", but a "hey, jesus, what do you advise I do?"
- If there are no religions, there's no more "us vs them" religious wars.
- We could ask for a way to attain more power from the sources we have available... of course, he could just tell us to keep researching and we'll get there. But it would be nice to have that info. Warp speed, is it really possible or just fiction? We could ask so many wonderful questions and get answers from the architect of the Universe.
- Millions of people would stop devoting their lives to preaching and praying and writing books on ancient writings... They could write books on recent discourses with god itself.
- warlords all over the world would take heed and stop warring and slaving.
- Money, while still important, would probably become less significant, as universal knowledge was at hand and novel and wondrous methods to ward off disease and famine could be reached (if the guy contributes)
- Society, as we know it, would have to change...
- Atheists would disappear, believers would disappear. Everyone would know god as well as everyone knows gravity.


Instead, we have a handful of people with some stories... these individuals' motivations and/or delusions beyond the reach of our scrutiny. Not a very solid base to stand. Hence what I said earlier about the requirement of belief taking all credibility from the institution.


That is a brief view of the big picture that goes through my mind when talking about religion.... this awareness is what makes me scoff at people who want me to "keep an open mind"... my mind has tons of information that go well beyond what I perceive any believer to have in his/her mind.

So, now that you've been presented with a glimpse of the big picture, how can you remain a believer and, on top of that, a catholic? What's the reasoning? What's the emotional charge that keeps you there? Why believe?