If you have ever encountered someone who has told you that baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity is invalid, and that the correct way to do it is in the name of Jesus alone, you have encountered someone of a Unitarian bent (United Pentecostal Church, Pentecostal Church of the Name of Jesus, etc., and are known colloquially within the Protestant world as the “Jesus Only”). This Protestant denomination has adopted an ancient heresy (modalism) in its various personifications (Sabellianism, Unitarianism) in which the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are believed to be the same divine person manifesting in different ways.
In this installment I will limit myself to analyzing his objections regarding the baptismal formula and the related biblical, patristic and historical problems.
Way to baptize according to the Bible
The biblical texts where baptism is discussed are the following:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19)
“Peter answered them: “Convert and let each one of you become baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)
“And he ordered them to go baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.Then they asked him to stay a few days.”(Acts 10:48)
“for it had not yet descended upon any of them;they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”(Acts 8:16)
“When they heard this, they went baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”(Acts 19:5)
As can be seen in the first text (Matthew 28:19) we see Jesus himself ordering his disciples to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity: in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but in other texts in the book of the Acts of the Apostles it is said that the disciples baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
I will leave the biblical quotes up to this point, because although the supporters of Unitarianism cite other texts abundantly to try to support their thesis (Matthew 1,21; 12,21; Luke 24,47; John 1,12; 20,31; Acts 4,12; 8:12.16; 10:43; 15,17; 22:16; 1 Corinthians 1:13)These are really irrelevant, since analyzed in their context it can be seen that they do not refer to the baptismal formula but to the importance of the name of Jesus in evangelization.
Now, solving the problem is something more complex than simply adding the texts from both directions and going for the majority, which will work for some but not for us. It is natural, however, to wonder if there really is a contradiction in these texts or what the correct formula is. Faced with this apparent contradiction, several solutions have been attempted, namely:
SOLUTION 1: Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation in the biblical text
This solution would be the simplest for Unitarians, and would consist of claiming that the words “baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” that we currently find in the gospel of Matthew are not part of the original text, but a late corruption inserted by some “pious” hand in search of support for the doctrine of the Trinity. If this were the case, it would be enough to cross out the words of Jesus in the aforementioned text from all the Bibles and the problem would be solved (at least for them).
Those who have attempted to follow this path seek support in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, a notable historian of the Church of the 4th century, noting that before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) he cited Matthew 28:19 writing “Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in my name” and later began to cite the text as we know it today. This would be for them the “proof” that the text was interpolated, but rather than demonstrating something already known, that in ancient times Scripture was often cited in a non-textual way, it weighs very little with respect to documentary evidence since all existing biblical manuscripts (including the oldest) read the complete formula: “…baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
Patristic evidence
In addition to this is the fact that the earliest early Christian writers long before Eusebius also cited Matthew 28:19 and did so using the Trinitarian formula. We could mention among them:
The Didache (65-80 AD)
“Concerning baptism, baptize in this way: Having said all these things beforehand, Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living [running] water. If you do not have living water, baptize with other water; If you can’t do it with cold water, do it with hot. If you do not have one or the other, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the baptizer and the baptized and some others who are able fast. When you are baptized, however, you will order him to fast one or two days before.”[1]
Saint Justin Martyr (100 – 168 AD)
“Then we lead them to a place where there is water, and by the same way of regeneration with which we were regenerated they are also regenerated, because then they take in the water the bath in the name of God, Father and Sovereign of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit.And so Christ said: Unless you are born again, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven..”[2]
Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (130 – 202 AD)
In his treatise against heresies he wrote:
“And likewise, when giving his disciples the power to regenerate for God, he told them “Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”[3]
And in his Epideixis (or Explanation of Apostolic Doctrine) he wrote:
“Our new birthbaptism is done with these three articles, who grant us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit”[4]
Tertullian (160 – 220 AD)
“Now this law of baptism has been imposed, and its form has been prescribed: “Go,” said the Lord to the apostles, “teach all nations, baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit»”[5]
“This does not mean that it is in the water that we receive the Holy Spirit, but that, purified by the water, we are prepared by the ministry of the angel to receive the Spirit. Here the figure still precedes the reality, just as John was the precursor of the Lord preparing his ways, likewise the Angel who presides at baptism traces the paths for the coming of the Holy Spirit, erasing sins by faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.Because if every word of God is supported by three witnesses, even more so is his gift. By virtue of the baptismal blessing we have as witnesses of faith those who are guarantors of salvation. And this trilogy of divine names is more than enough to found our hope. And since the testimony of faith and the guarantee of salvation are based on the Three Persons, the mention of the Church is necessarily included. Because where the Three are found: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there is the Church which is the body of the Three.”[6]
Origen (185 – 254 AD)
“Likewise, water baptism is a symbol of purification of the soul, which washes away every stain of sin, without ceasing to be the beginning and source of divine gifts for those who surrender themselves to divine power. of the invocations of the Trinity adorable”[7]
Taking all this into account, this first solution is not satisfactory, since all of these texts would also have to have been interpolated, which is neither credible nor is there evidence to support it.
SOLUTION 2: In the beginning, this way of baptizing was used alternatively and was considered valid as long as it was professed with Trinitarian faith.
Some fathers of the Church and even some local councils have been in favor of this solution. An ancient author who writes against Saint Cyprian about the reiteration of baptism, maintains that those who have been baptized outside the Church in the name of Jesus Christ should not receive new baptism, but only the laying on of hands so that they may receive the Holy Spirit, and adds that the formula in the name of the Trinity is not contrary to that where only one is baptized in the name of Jesus, because although the common use of the Church is the first, the invocation of the name of Jesus should not be considered useless. This writer seems to suppose that there were some heretics who baptized in the name of Jesus alone, and he did not want them to be rebaptized by the use of this incomplete formula.[8].
Saint Ambrose was of the same opinion.[9], who maintained that although complete and perfect baptism was that in which the entire Trinity was confessed, baptism in the name of Jesus was valid as long as none of the divine Persons were denied and the entire Trinity was confessed from the heart.
The Council of Fréjus (791) also adhered to this opinion after this objection had been made: “Why does Jesus Christ command to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and the apostles only command to be baptized in the name of the Son? Does the truth perhaps teach one thing, and the disciples of the truth another?God preserve us from having such a thought. But the apostles knew by revelation of the Holy Spirit that the mystery of the Holy Trinity, which the Savior had revealed to them in three Persons, was also understood under the name of one…In this way, the apostles make us understand the entire Trinity under the name of Jesus Christ alone.”.
Pope Nicholas I (858-867), following Saint Ambrose, confirmed this view by maintaining that heretics who had been baptized in the name of the Trinity or even only in the name of Jesus should not be rebaptized:
“You ask if those who have received baptism from someone who pretended to be a priest are Christians or have to be baptized again. If they have been baptized in the name of the supreme and undivided Trinity, you are certainly Christians. and, whoever the Christian was who baptized them, it is not advisable to repeat the baptism… The evil one, administering the good, to himself and not to others, accumulates a host of evils, and for this reason it is true that no harm comes to those who that Greek baptized, for this reason: This is the one who baptizes, that is, Christ; and also: God gives growth;It is understood: “and not the man.””[10]
“You state that a Jew, whether Christian or pagan, you do not know, has baptized many in your country and you are asking what should be done with them. Certainly, if they have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, then it is one and the same thing, as Saint Ambrose explains. (De Spiritu Sancto 1, 3, 42 (PL 16, 714)), it is clear that they are not to be rebaptized”
The Council of Nîmes in 1284 accepted that baptism was valid if the baptizer says “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ”.
Even Saint Thomas Aquinas held the opinion that the apostles, by virtue of a particular revelation of Christ, baptized under the invocation of the name of “Christ” (not the name of “Jesus”). But in the post-apostolic era he judged that baptism administered under the invocation of Christ was invalid, unless a special privilege of God permitted this exception.[11].The reason on which the holy doctor was founded was the positive ordination of Christ, clearly witnessed in Matthew 28:19.
While all this can show that:
1) There were those in the Church who believed that in the early Church people were baptized in the name of Jesus only, although they did not reject that baptism in the name of the Trinity was the correct and universal way.
2) There were those in the Church who accepted that this baptism in the name of Jesus could only be considered valid when it was done even among heretics, as long as it was done professing a Trinitarian faith.
It does not prove that they were right, since they all start from the assumption that when the Acts of the Apostles speaks of being baptized in the name of Jesus, they are referring to the baptismal formula, which, as will be seen, is not necessarily the case.
SOLUTION 3: The apostles always baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.
Those who adhere to this solution maintain that it is most likely that the apostles never actually baptized in the name of Jesus alone, but as commanded by the Lord Himself, in the name of the Three Divine Persons. The texts of the Acts of the Apostles where they speak of being baptized in the name of Jesus would simply refer in an abbreviated way to the baptism instituted by Jesus Christ, preached in his name and established with his authority, thus differentiating it from other baptisms such as that of John the Baptist. From this point of view there would be no contradiction, since in Matthew 28:19 Jesus himself indicated the baptismal formula and in the other texts the apostles would refer to this baptism already known as the baptism in the name of Jesus.
In favor of this point of view is that:
1) It is a probable thesis since it is common for these modes of expression to be used in the texts of Holy Scripture. In Acts 1:5 for example Jesus himself says “but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit in a few days“and this does not mean that one should be baptized only in the name of the Holy Spirit. Also in Acts 19, 2-5, it suggests that baptism “in the name of the Lord Jesus” contained the mention of the Holy Spirit.
It would not be natural to require the biblical writers to repeat such a long formula every time they referred to baptism, when the words of Jesus were known and attested to in the gospel. The same happens in theDidacheWell, when he talks about baptism “in the name of the Lord” refers to the Trinitarian baptism instituted by him as is evident from the instructions given in chapter 7.
2) It is not likely that the apostles changed the way they baptized having received express instructions from Jesus himself on how to do it.
3) The early Christian texts already mentioned confirm that the Trinitarian formula was in use by the early Church.
4) Although the opinion of Saint Ambrose was echoed in the Church, it was certainly a minority. The majority Tradition of the Church has demanded as valid only baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, as seen below:
The first Council of Arles (year 314) against the Donatists, demanded the rebaptism of converted heretics who had not been baptized in the name of the Trinity, because their baptism had been invalid:
“Can. 8. Regarding the Africans who use their own law of rebaptizing, it is fitting that if anyone passes from heresy to the Church, they should be asked for the symbol, and if they clearly see that he has been baptized in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, lay your hand on him only., so that he may receive the Holy Spirit. And if, when asked, he does not give the reason for this Trinity, let him be baptized.”[12]
Pope Pelagius I (556-561) did the same when writing to Bishop Gaudentius:
“There are many who affirm that they are only baptized in the name of Christ and by a single immersion;But the evangelical mandate, by the teaching of God himself, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, warns us to give holy baptism to each one in the name of the Trinity and also by triple immersion. In effect, our Lord Jesus Christ says to his disciples: Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
If, in fact, the heretics who are said to live in the places near your address, perhaps confess that they have been baptized only in the name of the Lord, when they return to the Catholic faith, you shall baptize them without any hesitation in the name of the Holy Trinity..If, however, by manifest confession it appears clear that they have been baptized in the name of the Trinity, after dispensing to them the sole grace of reconciliation, you will hasten to unite them to the Catholic faith, so that it does not appear to be done otherwise than as commanded by the authority of the Gospel..” [13]
The Roman Council (382) does the same:
“Because in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit alone we are baptized and not in the name of the archangels or angels, like the heretics or the Jews or even the insane pagans. This, then, is the salvation of Christians: that by believing in the Trinity, that is, in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and being baptized into it, we believe without a doubt that it possesses only one true divinity and power, majesty and substance..”[14]
Also Pope Saint Innocent I (year 401-417):
“That according to the Nicene canon, Paulianists who return to the Church must be baptized, but not Novatians… The reason why it has been distinguished in these two heresies is clear, since Paulinists do not baptize in any way in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Novatians baptize with the same tremendous and venerable names, and no question has ever arisen among them about the unity of divine power, that is, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..”[15]
Pope Saint Gregory the Great (590-604) also rejects as valid any baptism that was not in the name of the Trinity:
“From the ancient tradition of the Fathers we have learned that those who in heresy are baptized in the name of the Trinity, when they return to the Holy Church, are reduced to the bosom of the Holy Mother Church either by the anointing of chrism, or by the laying on of hands, or by the sole profession of faith… because the holy baptism that they received among the heretics, then reaches in them the force of purification, when they have united themselves to the holy faith and to the bowels of the universal Church. Those heretics, however, who are in no way baptized in the name of the Trinity, are baptized when they come to the Holy Church, since it was not baptism that they did not receive in the name of the Trinity., while they were in error. Nor can it be said that this baptism was repeated, since, as has been said, it was not given in the name of the Trinity..”[16]
Pope Saint Gregory II (715-731) was of the same opinion.[17], Pope Saint Gregory III (731-741)[18], Pope Saint Zacharias (741-752)[19].
The Ecumenical Council of Florence in the bull Exultate Deo (year 1439) defines the correct way to baptize: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
Conclusions
As has been seen, different solutions have been attempted to the apparent contradiction between the baptizing formula contained in the Gospel of Matthew and the texts of the Acts of the Apostles. It is clear, however, that even among those who maintained that it could be valid to baptize only in the name of Jesus, the profession of an integral Trinitarian faith was necessary. And not even among them was there any rejection of the Trinitarian formula as read in Matthew 28:19.
It is necessary to point out that this is not the case for people who have adhered to these unitary denominations. If you received baptism there only in the name of Jesus your baptism is invalid, both for not having been baptized in the correct way, and for not professing faith in the Triune God.
Author: José Miguel Arráiz
——————————–
NOTES
[1] Didache 7,1-4
Daniel Ruiz Bueno, Apostolic Fathers, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 65, Fifth Edition, Madrid 1985, p.84
[2] Saint Justin, Apology I,16
Daniel Ruiz Bueno, Greek Apologist Fathers, Library of Christian Authors 116, Third Edition, Madrid 1996, p.250
[3] Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, III, 17, 1
Alfonso Ropero, The best of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Editorial Clie, Barcelona 2003, Page 361
[4] Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Epideixis, 7
Enrique Contreras, Baptism, Fathers of the Church, Editora Patria Grande, Buenos Aires, year 2004, p.27
[5] Tertullian, On Baptism, 13
Angel Barahona and Sol Gavira, Baptism according to the Fathers of the Church, Caparros Editores, SL, Madrid 1994, p.65
[6] Tertullian, On Baptism, 6, 1-2
Enrique Contreras, Baptism, Fathers of the Church, Editora Patria Grande, Buenos Aires, year 2004, page.54
[7] origins, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 6, 165-168
Enrique Contreras, Baptism, Fathers of the Church, Editora Patria Grande, Buenos Aires, year 2004, page.38
[8] Ibid.
[9] Saint Ambrose, From Holy Spirit 1, 3, 42
Migne, Latin Patrology 16, 714
[10] Saint Nicholas I, From the answers to the inquiries of the Bulgarians, November 866 (Dz 334a)
[11] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Theological Summation, III 66, 6
[12] Council of Arles against the Donatists (Dz 53)
[13] Pelagius I, From the Letter Admonemus ut, to Gaudentius, bishop of Volterra, around the year 560 (Dz 229)
[14] Roman Council (Dz 82)
[15] Innocent I, From Carta 17 Magna me gratulatio, to Rufus and other bishops of Macedonia, of December 13, 414 (Dz 97)
[16] Saint Gregory the Great, From the Letter Quia charitati to the bishops of Hyberia, around June 22, 601 (Dz 249)
[17] Saint Gregory II, From the Letter Desiderabilem mihi, to Saint Boniface, of November 22, 726 (Dz 296a)
[18] Saint Gregory III, From the Letter Doctoris omnium to Saint Boniface, October 29, 739 (Dz 296b)
[19] Saint Zechariah, From Letter 10 or 11 Sacris liminibus to Saint Boniface, May 1, 748 (Dz 297a)
