Peter As First Pope

[CatholicAndFanatical]

I had a question that has been asked many times that I do not have a good answer for.

1. We teach Peter as being the first Pope, given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, power to Bind and Loose on earth.

but looking through Acts it appears that Peter does things differently than we do today. Peter only baptised in the name of Jesus, not Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So why don't we baptise like this today?

2. It was explained to me that when Jesus told the Apostles to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - He was referring to Himself. This is why Peter baptised in the name of Jesus.

When did this change and why would Jesus use the singular 'name' instead of 'names of'?


Thanks

[Archaeology cat]

I've heard a couple of explanations. One is that he is saying "In the Name of Jesus Christ, be baptised", so giving a command in Jesus' Name. Another is that he is simply differentiating between the baptism of Jesus and that of John. In neither case does it necessarily mean it is not a Trinitarian baptism.

As for the singular "Name" - I've always thought that was because there is one God, but perhaps I'm incorrect in that being the explanation.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Archaeology cat

[thessalonian]

"In the Name of Jesus" means by the authority of Jesus. We do it by his authority. In Math 28 he has "all authority has been given to me...therefore baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". There was no change. Authority is not form.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1298135399' post='2213843']
"In the Name of Jesus" means by the authority of Jesus. We do it by his authority. In Math 28 he has "all authority has been given to me...therefore baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". There was no change. Authority is not form.
[/quote]
Yes, that's what I was trying to remember. Thanks, Thess.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1298137140' post='2213851']
Yes, that's what I was trying to remember. Thanks, Thess.
[/quote]

itssssalright.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Thanks Thess and Arch for the reply. But the question still remains why Peter and the Apostles baptised in the name of Jesus rather than Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Thanks

[MIKolbe]

It has also been said that he stated it that was to advise what type of baptism it was...(St. Luke also mentions John's baptism Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4; jewish; or pagan baptisms). It also indicates the person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3).

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' timestamp='1298301309' post='2214383']
Thanks Thess and Arch for the reply. But the question still remains why Peter and the Apostles baptised in the name of Jesus rather than Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Thanks
[/quote]
They didn't. They were denoting that it was the baptism that Jesus taught, I think. And, as Thess was saying, telling them to be baptised "in the Name of Jesus" was a command, but doesn't mean it wasn't a Trinitarian baptism.

To add to what MIKolbe said, it also differentiates this baptism from others. Like in Acts when Priscilla & Aquila meet Apollos, and they ask him what baptism he had, and he responds that he only had John's baptism.

The [url="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html"]Didache[/url] wasn't written too long after Acts and clearly gives instruction for a Trinitarian baptism.

God bless

[thessalonian]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' timestamp='1298301309' post='2214383']
Thanks Thess and Arch for the reply. But the question still remains why Peter and the Apostles baptised in the name of Jesus rather than Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Thanks
[/quote]


You don't understand my post. They are one in the same. "In the name of Jesus is the authority, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is form. The question does not remain.

[infinitelord1]

Im in no position to explain what is going on in Acts versus how Jesus explained Baptism in the Gospels. The following is just a thought of mine...

If I remember correctly, in Acts, Peter had ran across some people who received Baptism from John the Baptist. I think Peter asked them if they had received the Gifts of the Holy Spirit...and they replied by saying "No". So He baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ and laid hands on them. They then received the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and began speaking in tongues.

I could be completely wrong about this, but my understanding is that, John the Baptist was Baptizing people before He met Jesus. And I think He was Baptizing people in a sense that the Messiah had not come yet. Basically like baptizing them by saying... "In the name of the Father, and of the one [Messiah] who has not come yet...."
And He was doing this, in this way, even though the Messiah had arrived. He just was not aware of it at the time. So I think Peter ran across these people that had incomplete Baptisms (done by John the Baptist). And made sure that they were Baptized in the name of the Messiah who had already come. Which would make their Baptisms valid.

I could be completely wrong about all of this...this is just a theory I have been recently thinking about in my own mind. I have been discussing Baptism with other people recently, and have come across this conflict myself.

One more thing, if I remember correctly, part of Salvation in Old Testament times was to believe that the Messiah would come. In this case, it would make sense as to why John the Baptist would baptize in a way that the Messiah would be coming.

Edited February 24, 2011 by infinitelord1