Do Matthew 28:19 & Acts 2:38 contradict each other?

If they do, then all of Christianity is in trouble, because Jesus left no written word of His own. If the apostles were wrong in one area, then how could we trust any of it?

Matthew 28:19 tells us to baptize in the name. Acts 2:38 does the same. They both refer to a single name, and the apostles clearly understood it to be Jesus. Not only did they consistently baptize only in the name of Jesus, never once repeating the three titles, but they also instructed us to do everything, word and deed, in that same name. (Col. 3:17)

For David: Clearly, you have no understanding of Greek. If you did, you would know that Acts 2:38 actually says to be baptized INTO the forgiveness of sins. The Greek preposition used is εις, and any first year Greek student can tell you it means "into." Sorry if that contradicts your theology, but from what I've seen, so does most of the book of Acts.

Oh, and David, most of what you say about us isn't true. You DO know that lying is a sin, don't you? Then please stop.

No way!

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Matthew 28:19

Notice that the word NAME is singular . . . one name. The words Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles, not names.

In Acts 2:37 They asked the Apostles what they should do, and Peter said: "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 2:38

What is the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Peter knew, and the other Apostles standing there with him knew. This NAME is JESUS!

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were BAPTIZED into JESUS Christ were baptized into his death?"

Romans 6:3

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the NAME of the Lord JESUS.."

Colossians 3:17

Girls Details Birthday:16th April 1985 Birth time:07:35:00 Place of birth:Jabalpur Boy's Details Birthday:27th Sept 1986 Birth Time:13:44:00 Place of Birth: Udhampur J.K

I don’t think so. Your first quote from Matthew is an instruction from Jesus.

Matthew 28:18-20 NIV

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

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."

Your second quotation is the Apostle Peter telling of the action necessary to be saved and adding the result of that action.

Acts 2:37-39 NIV

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

The fact that Peter does not make exactly the same statement as Jesus does not indicate that the baptism would have been carried out in any other way than that commanded by Jesus.

It is no more a contradiction than -

Acts 8:12 NIV

But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

and

Galatians 3:27-29 NIV

27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

They are all different expressions of the original command give by Jesus in Matthew 28:19

When you appreciate how important the first century Christians considered the word of Jesus to be.

It is unlikely that they would done any thing other than baptize new converts

"in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

No, they have two different contexts. Matthew 28:19 is Jesus' instructions to His followers. Acts 2:38 occurred when Peter was preaching to the Jews after God the Holy Spirit indwelled the believers. Those hearing Peter were cut to the heart at what had been done to Jesus and wanted to accept Him as Lord and Savior. Peter showed them that they needed to change their thinking and actions and be baptized by immersion as a symbol of new life in them. Then, he said, God the Holy Spirit would come upon them, too just like He did with the believers on Pentecost.

No, not all!

Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43). He said to the Father, "I have manifested thy name… I have declared unto them thy name" (John 17:6, 26). The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would declare God's name (Psalm 22:22; Hebrews 2:12). Jesus received His name by inheritance (Hebrews 1:4). What name did Jesus come in, manifest, declare, and receive by inheritance? Jesus. Therefore, the Father has revealed Himself to man through the name Jesus.

Without doubt the name of the Son is Jesus, for the angel told Joseph, "And she shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name JESUS" (Matthew 1:21).

Jesus said, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things" (John 14:26). The Spirit is given and revealed through the name Jesus.

David,

"You don't take aspirin to get a headache; you take aspirin because you have a headache."

That is a correct statement.

"You don't get baptized to get sins; you get baptized because of sins."

That is a correct statement.

"You don't get baptized to get remission of sins; you get baptized because of remission of sins."

That is an INCORRECT statement.

You're comparing apples to oranges. You don't want to keep a headache, but you DO want to obtain remission of sins. You take the aspirin to get rid of the headache; likewise, you get baptized to get rid of sins.

A more correct comparison would be "Take an aspirin for the relieving of a headache" and "Be baptized for the remission of sins." You don't take an aspirin because your headache is already relieved. You take an aspirin IN ORDER TO OBTAIN relief for your headache.

If you're going to make a comparison, please make it a valid one.

Apostolic Believer in One God, JESUS

No. :)

Jesus is the name of all three.

The Meaning of Eis

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for [eis] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

How should we understand eis, in a causal or referential way? Only the context can decide, and I argue that the context favors the causal interpretation. Peter had just finished proclaiming to the onlookers that they were responsible for crucifying their promised messiah. This realization convicted their heart of sin, prompting them to ask the disciples, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" They were not asking for an itinerary of the day's activities, but seeking to know what they could do to be forgiven of the sin they came to recognize they were guilty of. Peter's response is recorded in Acts 2:38. What were they to do? They were to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins, and then receive the Spirit. If eis means "in reference to," we must conclude that Peter never answered their question. As Daniel Segraves wrote, "If eis does not mean at this point "in order to obtain," nothing in this verse is connected with the purpose of obtaining forgiveness, including repentance. In this case, would the command to repent mean something like "repent…with reference to the remission of your sins"? It is contextually evident from the general tenor of Peter's sermon that he is commanding his hearers to take specific action that will result in the forgiveness of their sins. At the point he made his commands, their sins were not yet forgiven." Only if eis expresses purpose would their question have been answered.

One might argue that eis does express purpose, but restrict its application to repentance based on the argument that the pronoun and the verb it modifies must be in grammatical agreement. As we saw earlier, however, this argument is not sound. Peter used a plural pronoun with a singular verb earlier in the verse, and thus there is no reason to think he is not doing the same thing later in the verse. Furthermore, if eis refers only to repentance, then Peter never provided a reason to be baptized. This seems highly unlikely.

In Christ,

Kelly

The reason that we are baptized in Jesus’ name is that we are being baptized into Jesus. We are taking on his name, similar to the way a woman takes on her husband's name. We are saying that we belong to Jesus and we are identifying with Him in His death and burial. Even if God were a trinity, Jesus is the one who died for us and He is the one who the Christians at Rome were buried with.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

If we follow Paul’s train of thought, his obvious implication is "No, Christ was the one crucified for you and so you were baptized in the name of Christ" So the believers at Corinth as well as those in Rome were baptized in Jesus’ name.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

In addition to those in Rome, Corinth and Ephesus (as well as Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria), we see that the Christians in Colosse and those in the region of Galatia were all baptized in Jesus’ name. They would not have connected baptism so exclusively with Christ had they routinely baptized using the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." As I said before, the only way that we see anyone being baptized is in Jesus' name. When Jesus’ was on this earth, He baptized His disciples (John 4:1,2) and then commissioned them to go and baptize others in His name, or in His place.1 When Jesus baptized someone, He didn’t have to say "in Jesus name." He was Jesus. But when we stand in his stead, we do it in his name. Scripture tells us that whatever we do in word or deed should be done in Jesus’ name (Col. 3:17). Baptism is an act of both word and deed.

The Catholic Church changed the way that people were baptized. From there on people continued to follow this tradition, probably because it fit so well with their Trinitarian doctrine:

BRITANICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the Second Century. – 11th Edit., Vol. 3, ppg. 365-366.

CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of the Trinity Doctrine in the Second Century.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. – Vol. 2, pg. 263.

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." – Vol. 2, pg. 377. Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. – Vol. 2, pg. 389. NAME was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus’ name became His personal property. "Ye are Christ’s." – Vol. 2, pg. 377 on Acts 2:38.2

gatita

Apostolic, Believer, In, One, God, Jesus

:

I really don't see a difference between either of them.