No. 11 Okay, thank you. I appreciate that answer. I have another question. I�ve noticed that in Acts the apostles baptize in the name of Jesus. But we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What is the right practice? >>PROFESSOR ROLAND ZIEGLER: Yeah, that's a tricky question. One that has been discussed for a long time and is still being discussed. The first objection to answer that question is that we look at the institution of baptism by the risen Christ. And there he gives also the words to be used. Baptize them in the name ***asto oma, of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you look at the practice of the Christian church throughout the centuries, they followed Matthew 28. Everybody baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Only with the rise of higher criticism doubts arose if the risen Christ actually said these words. And these doubts were founded -- scholars said: Well, you know it's a Trinitarian formula. It's pretty advanced theology for the time of the resurrection of Christ. So maybe that's just a later invention when Matthew's Gospel was written. And the critics stated to about 80. Which means then of course that okay this does not describe what the risen Christ did but what the community thought the risen Christ did. It's again a nice way to camouflage: Well this was made up by the first Christians. Well, such an approach really overlooks that even though in the letters of Paul, for example, there is not the full Trinitarian formula. There is nevertheless the Trinity. And there are Trinitarian ways of speaking. And of course it overlooks the story of Jesus' baptism himself. Because when Jesus is baptized, you have the voice of the Father, the Spirit in the form of a dove and Christ there. So you have all three persons of the Trinity. It doesn't say "and there was Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in these words. But he does say it. It's Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Besides such an argumentation that draws into doubt the authenticity of Matthew 28, undermines the trustworthiness of Scripture and also the possibility that Jesus, the risen Christ, who is the best theologian, might just have used this formula. It turns Scripture out of a revelation from God into a theological reflection of man. So Matthew 28 was from the very beginning of the church central for its baptismal practice. But if it was so central, then why is the formula never used it seems in Acts? That's the real conundrum? Why is it recorded that in Pentecost Peter says: Be baptized in the name of Jesus? It's really an exegetical conundrum. There are several ways to solve that question. One is to say that in the name of Jesus is an abbreviated mentioning of the Trinitarian formula. Since at the center of the revelation of the Trinity is Christ. Christ really is the full revelation. Because he reveals to us the Father. And he sends to us the Spirit. "In the name of Jesus" is really an abbreviation of Jesus who is the Son of the Father and who sends the Spirit. So "in the name of Jesus" is just short for in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Closely related to this view is the theory that baptizing in the name of Jesus does not denote a liturgical formula at all. So baptizing in the name of Jesus does not mean we baptize them saying: In the name of Jesus. But rather it tells us something about the theological understanding of baptism. What is baptism? Baptism is that you are incorporated into Christ. That you are connected with his salvific deed. That you are coming into Communion with Christ or even that you are becoming his property. So that baptism in the name of Jesus is explicating the content of baptism. That the formula baptizing in the name of Jesus does not mean that the early church understood baptism in a non-Trinitarian way as shown by I Corinthians 6:11. Paul writes: In such were some of you. But ye were washed, ye were sanctified and ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our Lord. Here the phrase, "Ye were washed" shows the connection to baptism. Baptism is this washing. It is sanification and justification in the name of the Lord Jesus that is on account of or by the power of Jesus and by the Spirit of God. And God in Paul's letters is the name of the Father. Almost everywhere where Paul uses God, it means the Father. So all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned here in this sentence. And they are connected with what was going on in baptism. So baptism here is not understood in a christomonistic way that the other persons of the Trinity are excluded. But it is an action of the entire Holy Trinity. Another hint that these are not competing formuli, that there was not the group that baptized in the name of Jesus, and then there was the group that baptized in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is shown by a very early document of church history. The so-called ***di dahae or the teaching of the 12 apostles, which is dated, well, about 70 to 100 AD. That's about the timeframe. The de dahae on the one hand prescribes baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. On the other hand, it prescribes that only those who are quote "baptized in the Lord" are to be admitted to the sacred meal. It could be the Eucharist. It couldn't. It's not quite sure. So they can use it interchangeably, baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and baptized in the Lord. So these are not exclusive or competitive formuli. Whatever the exegetical solution is, the Trinitarian formula has the sanction of the risen Lord and it was therefore rightfully adopted by the church as the baptismal formula. And that's what we have in our agendas and was in all agendas of all churches for the last at least 1900 years. So there is no reason -- need to change that. In this connection comes up a practical question: What about the recognitions of baptisms outside the Lutheran Church? Historically there was not a universal recognition of all baptisms by all churches. In the 19th -- in the 20th Century I know of at least two cases where Lutherans who joined the Roman Catholic Church were baptized. One was ***Adua Price who was the professor in the seminary in St. Louis who was baptized in 1872. And another one was Eric Peterson who was also professor of theology in ***Bahn. And that was in the early 1930s. Because the Roman Catholics doubted if the Lutherans baptized validly. And still today you find that in some quarters of Eastern Orthodoxy, especially in Greece, who'll accept converts only by baptism because they say there is no baptism outside the Orthodox church or they will say that baptisms done not in a fashion of immersion aren't valid. The same thing is true of course for Baptists. Of course they say infant baptisms are not valid. Lutherans generally accept the baptism of Roman Catholics and Reformed. Why? Because the Lutherans said that Christ was still present in his words. And that these churches used these words, even though they might have a wrong understanding of the power of baptism. But they did not deny what they say. In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What about those communities that deny what these words mean? And they are speaking here about anti-Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian churches. They might use the same words. But it's only the sound. Okay. When they say in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they don't say, "Okay, in the name of the Father, who is God, the Son, who is God, the Holy Spirit, who is God." But maybe their understanding is in the name of the Father who is God, the son who is an exalted being and the Holy Spirit who is just the power of God or something like that. In these cases because only the sound of the word was spoken but not their meaning, the Lutherans did not accept and are not accepting this as a valid baptism. And therefore, if a person comes from such a community, this person has to be baptized. That is relevant especially for Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons even though they claim to be Christian are not. Not at all. They do not believe in the triune God. They have their own strange views about who God is and how you can become a god. And therefore, their baptism cannot be accepted. They are in a sense to be treated like converts from paganism. The same is true about Jehovah's Witnesses who also deny the Trinity. And Unitarians. And ***espondic Pentecostals who also deny the Trinity. So anti-Trinitarians outside of Christendom, I mean whatever they call themselves, they are outside of Christendom. And when they say in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they do not mean the one true God. And therefore their baptism is a mockery really. They are outside of the institution. Also a baptism is not seen as a true baptism when the baptismal formula is bastardized like when somebody is baptized in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. That is also a departure from the institution of Christ. So when people come from other churches, you have to ask them "Where were you baptized and what in what church were you baptized?" Unfortunately you can't assume simply "Well, they were baptized and that's it and it's valid." But you have to find out actually "Who baptized you?" The best thing is of course if they have a baptismal certificate or if such a certificate can be obtained. Or if you have a response of the living who can actually testify to what was done there. Because you never know what kind of bizarre things can happen. So you have to be cautious there and have to do -- have to assert that they are validly baptized. And when you baptize, of course, you don't make up your own baptismal formula. But you follow the words of Christ. If Christ instituted it, he knows best. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. No, really. We baptize because Christ has commanded us. So it makes no sense to depart from his institution to begin with.