A blogger asked a question in the comments section of the “The Oneness of God and Baptism in Jesus’ Name are not Joined at the Hip” thread that deserves its own post. The question had to do with the validity of hybrid baptismal formulas.
Do you think it is acceptable to baptize someone with either of these hybrid baptismal formulas?:
- “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is the name of Jesus Christ.”
- “In the name of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Why or why not? Do you think someone who was baptized with such a formula is saved? Would you require them to be rebaptized?
I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter.
Thinking to Believe 
October 12, 2007 at 11:23 am
Ok. Draw us out so you can shoot us down… Ha!
Let me ask this question: is is okay to say this over a person, “Upon the confession of your faith and willingness to be baptized in the likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I know baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins?” This is what two of my longtime, previous pastors said over the person being baptized.
It seems to me that many OP Pastors feel free to adapt and improvise what they say over baptism just so as to not mess with the strict phrase, “in the name of [the/our Lord and/or Savior ]Jesus Christ.”
I think it helps to realize that we are not performing a magic rite and that the phrase is not magical. The rite itself does not produce regeneration. In fact, the rite is not equal with regeneration though it certainly corresponds to and is the public event portraying and declaring that this person is (1) being /has been born again (or ‘from above’), (2) entering the church, (3) being forgiven by God, (4) washing away their sins, (5) declaring public faith, trust, and allegiance to Jesus as Lord, (6) identifying with Jesus and His Gospel (death-burial-resurrection), (7)passing thru the waters of death and judgment, and (8) being united with Jesus Christ. Wow! Baptism is an incredible thing! It is much, much more than we traditionally teach it to be. I believe baptism needs to be magnified more and more–it is the public act of conversion (or rite/ritual/ceremony) central to the New Testament Gospel, Faith, and Church.
Nevertheless, it is not magic. It does not depend upon an anal exactitude of imitating the biblical texts. If it does we should strive to correspond exactly with minute detail to the instances in Scripture. Perhaps we should baptize in running water only (rivers, streams, do showers count?), or just always in open bodies of water (rivers, streams, AND lakes, ponds, and oceans). I mean did they have baptismal tanks in Acts?
What about getting the phrasing of the ‘rite’ words just right? For instance, one might say that the only biblical baptism is to dunk a person while saying only, “in the name of Jesus” just as the person is going under. Or what about all those debates concerning what is the right way to pronounce the name of Jesus of Nazareth (in Greek, Aramaic), what is it? If it is magic, like Cinderalla’s fairy god-mother, we better get it just right. I’d hate to get to heaven and find out that my pastor did have it just slightly off… you were supposed to say Yeshua in running water you dum-dum!
To me, it seems that if one pursues the strictest literalism possible all sorts of “logical” possibilities open up (though they’re all dead ends). And of course, there are individuals and groups out there saying this kind of stuff. Amazingly, I think most of us would say such arguments are nutty, and the people making them are nutjobs, BUT we should realize that at times they are simply extending the same logic we often use but not always willing to follow. Whether innately or intuitively we realize that we don’t want to really go there and it’s not really true to the nature of biblical faith.
Even with the NT there are slight variations (however slight!) between the baptismal invocations. For instance, Acts 2:38 uses “in the name of Jesus Christ;” Acts 8:16, “into the name of the Lord Jesus;” Acts 10:48, “in the name of Jesus Christ;” Acts 19:5, “into the name of the Lord Jesus,” I realize that the differences are slight, but they are real. If nothing else, this should dissuade us from a magical, overly literal and mystic view of baptism. Given this realization, our own willingness to comment on baptism while invoking the name in baptism (see above), and the fact that the name of Jesus is being called on, I would struggle to call the ones you’ve listed invalid baptismal invocations.
Ultimately, it’s about faithfulness to Scripture and the authority of God. It’s about the faith (in Jesus as Lord and Savior) of the person being baptized and the authority of the baptizer to baptize and receive the person being baptized. Both are believing that God is at work. The one is openly trusting in the work of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, on the Cross as being for them (and all the other stuff listed above), that what is true of Jesus is true of them, they are righteous in God’s eyes. The other is receiving them into the kingdom, acting as Jesus to receive new believers into Jesus Christ and His church, communion with the Saints. “In/into Jesus” for the person being baptized signifies union with the Person and Work of the One in whom their faith lies. “In/into Jesus” for the person baptizing signifies the authority by which they are baptizing.
As far as actual practice, I would say that it is best to invoke a simple, “in/into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” in baptism. Theologically, baptism is essentially all about Jesus. Biblically, baptism is performed by a basic “in the name of Jesus” formula. Practically, it should be kept simple.
LikeLike
October 12, 2007 at 11:50 am
Chad,
My guns are locked in my holster!
I have heard pastors say similar things to your two pastors. But I don’t think it is comparable to the hybrid formulas in that the hybrid formulas expand on the baptismal formula itself. Your pastors were not adding to the formula, but prefacing it with “theology talk.” I don’t think anybody would hold that the only words that can come out of the baptizer’s mouth anytime during the baptism are, “In the name of Jesus Christ.”
Those who argue against hybrid formulas usually do so on the basis that it distorts the Biblical teaching, acting as if both “F,S,HS” and “Jesus’ name” are part of the intended formula, when in reality the only intended formula was “Jesus’ name.” How would you respond to that argument? Are the hybrid forms compromising Biblical teaching—exchanging truth for pragmatism?
You said, “I think it helps to realize that we are not performing a magic rite and that the phrase is not magical. The rite itself does not produce regeneration. In fact, the rite is not equal with regeneration though it certainly corresponds to and is the public event portraying and declaring.” I’m with you on the first sentence, but I’m not so sure I understand what you mean after that. Are you saying the act of baptism does not mediate any spiritual realities (just a public demonstration of faith, etc.), or are you merely emphasizing that it is the operative faith in and through the act of baptism that mediates these spiritual realities, rather than the rite in and of itself? To ask another way, do you think baptism—when done in faith—mediates spiritual realities that have not, and indeed cannot be received prior to baptism? If yes, do you think those spiritual realities mediated through baptism are essential for one’s salvation?
Jason
LikeLike
October 12, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Jason,
Thanks for keeping the guns down!
I don’t think one would have to say that these “hybrid” formulas are anything more than what we do in practice: theological commentary and biblical synopsis. If our commenting is not invalidating the formula why would these invalidate the formula so long as it is done in Jesus name? Our commenting often runs right up to and past the invocation of Jesus name! The point of the formulas in Acts demonstrate that Jesus is the proper referent in baptism and that He is properly invoked regardless of small differences in exact phrasing so long as “Jesus” is Himself called upon by name. Remember, in baptism we are calling upon the name of Jesus not because we are merely reciting a ritual formula, but calling upon a person, the living Jesus (Acts 22:16). So if Jesus is the proper referent of the baptismal invocation or formula, and His name is invoked then what is the issue even if it is said how you’ve stated in your “hybrid” forms. The only reason why I think we would accept what we often say in baptism but then reject the “hybrid” formulas you’ve listed is that we are overly sensitive because of our historical background. That doesn’t mean that I believe it wise to use the hybrid forms or that I’m advocating theological accommodation, rather I’m talking about what is valid biblically before God. Please note the practice which I suggested at the end of my commenting.
On your other question, I do agree that baptism mediates, or confers, a spiritual reality not had before or provided in something other than baptism. That seems very apparent from all the biblical texts on baptism and how it describes baptism. But, as my previous comments indicate, I want to be very careful to emphasize that the rite is meaningless apart from the faith of the person being baptized AND that baptism is not ITSELF regeneration. Regeneration is what God is doing on the whole person (heart-soul-mind) He is saving, baptism is physically and publicly what the baptized person experiences and the church sees. Regeneration is what God does, baptism is what we do. In that sense, I don’t see why it is wrong to say something like “baptism is an outward sign of an inward work,” though that is certainly not a comprehensive or full-orbed understanding of baptism. I believe these distinctions are important for several reasons: (1) God’s action takes priority over ours; (2) many in the OP movement have seemed to go too far in ritualizing / over-formalizing baptism as a thing in itself (from my experience); (3) they are biblical; (4) they are theologically accurate; and (5) I want to put people’s faith completely in the work of Jesus and not their own obedience by keeping baptism totally focused on Jesus. One could respond, “well why distinguish between baptism and… (spiritual realities mediated)?” Well, because it seems the Bible does. For instance, it seems that the Apostle John is doing something similar in John 1:12 when John distinguishes between the believing of individuals and God’s adoption and regeneration of them (His emphasis on God’s will being decisive in new birth). Obviously, if there is a valid distinction between the faith that is primary in regeneration and regeneration itself, then there is a distinction between baptism and regeneration as well (and all other spiritual realities conferred). It is very easy to understand in Romans 6:1-14 that there is an obvious distinction between what baptism is signifying (death-burial-resurrection) and baptism itself (obviously not exactly identical with Jesus’ own death-burial-resurrection) even though in baptism Jesus’ death-burial-resurrection becomes our own!
It is perhaps good at this point to understand the difference between distinguishing (distinctions) and separating. To distinguish is merely to acknowledge differences or recognize differences in or within something, to separate is to disconnect or disassociate two or more things. As R.C. Sproul says, it is one thing to distinguish between your body and your soul, but to separate them would kill you!
Are those spiritual realities mediated through baptism necessary for salvation? Yes, and it seems easier to ask: “is baptism necessary for salvation?” As far as the Bible goes, there is simply no such thing as an unbaptized Christian. Almost every evangelical that I know of (particularly Baptists), regardless of their theological understanding of baptism, would agree with my last statement. There is no Sinner’s Prayer in the Bible (though there are many prayers offered up by sinners) and there is no altar call (whether Billy Graham, Baptist style, or even OP style), there is baptism. Baptism is the New Testament act of conversion. When do we “confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead” (Romans 10:9-10)? When we are baptized! I had never thought of that before until one of my Baptist professors made that connection. If one correlates Romans 1:16, 3:21 – 5:11, 6:1-14,8:5-16, 8:28-39, 10:5-14, 12:1-2, one ought to have a really good understanding of the connection between the Gospel, conversion, and baptism.
In no way, do I intend to denigrate baptism. In fact, I believe we ought to magnify it! We should magnify it because it magnifies Jesus. We should magnify it by giving it fuller exposition in our teaching, by giving fuller exposition of the Gospel (all that Jesus has done for us ), by working hard to explain what baptism and the Gospel is and does as we baptize converts, by striving to better disciple converts thru the baptismal process, by trying to ensure that people are disciples of Jesus before we baptize them, by demanding a confession of faith from converts before we baptize them, and by not throwing baptism around on whomever strolls through the door without their commitment to the local church and their submitting to Jesus as Savior AND Lord and to the church for fellowship and discipline.
I’m off the main question, but why wouldn’t we strive to do many of the things l’ve listed to magnify baptism if we are to take the Great Commission seriously which is not merely about baptizing but about making disciples? For instance, I know of some OP pastors who would baptize anyone in Jesus name in a matter of minutes without exception, without knowing them, their background, or what they really believe. In fact, I know of one, whom I respect highly, who has baptized members of other churches (Trinitarian churches) in Jesus name, knowing the individuals are not committing at all to his local church but are going to go back to their own churches. I’m not saying that’s invalid per se, but that actually concerns me more. It does so for several reasons. For one, while we (OPs) have a better grasp than many on the relation of baptism to the Gospel (and salvation) and it’s proper administration, we have a terrible understanding of the relation of baptism to ecclesiology, discipleship, and the local church. If someone cannot commit to becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ publicly and to committing to the local church, why should they be baptized? It doesn’t make sense if someone doesn’t understand what they are doing, or if someone doesn’t really intend to follow thru with what baptism signifies (union with Christ, Jesus as Lord, part of the church)!
While it seems that in Acts 8, Philip baptizes someone he quickly meets (under the guidance of the Spirit no less), even here Philip teaches the Ethiopian until he properly understands Jesus and what Jesus has done (by expounding Isaiah 53), and does not baptize him until after that has been done: “if you believe with all your heart, you may” (Acts 8:37). Though Philip’s statement is textually suspect it seems likes good practice (just as it did to those who may have emended the text)!
As far as my whole previous response goes, I was trying to be balanced and handle up-front any of the whacky far-out positions people arrive at by over-literalizing Scripture, or whatever the best word is for what some do. However, do you agree with most of what I’ve said? That is as far as the multi-faceted nature of baptism, the way “in Jesus name” operates/functions/signifies, and my recommendation for actual practice?
LikeLike
October 12, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I have some questions for you. I’ve thought often about these questions. You may not have the time to respond to all of them, and I don’t mean to hijack your blog! Here they are:
(1) I’ve heard some OP preachers state that baptism is when the blood is applied personally to you. Is that true biblically and what support is there for that?
(2) What spiritual realities are mediated in baptism? That is the question!
(3) Since you are asking hard questions (good ones!) let me return the favor. The Scriptures include both what is stated in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. If a person is baptized and they have genuine faith in Jesus but the baptizer uses Matthew 28:19 instead of Acts 2:38, can we be truly sure that the spiritual realities are NOT conveyed in that case?
a. Remember, it is the Bible, not the some creed or confession, which includes what is stated in Matthew 28:19. My point being that if Jesus is the referent of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 and He is the one in whom the person is trusting and He is the one performing the spiritual work then (theoretically) what is the difference? Is the person really not saved in such a case?
b. Furthermore, how can it be said that a person is disobedient to Scripture by baptizing using a specific Scripture (Matthew 28:19)??
c. Let’s get even more hypothetical and add this: let’s say this person’s community has only come across the Gospel of Matthew and not the full NT. What then?
i. That may sound hypothetical, but such situations doubtless occurred in the early church when the Scriptures were not compiled in one volume.
d. As far as 3b goes, I see this as being a particular strong rebuttal or potential defeater of some of our arguments. I understand that properly we might say Matthew 28:19 is obeyed by doing what Acts 2:38 says, but the response is still the same: Matthew 28:19 IS Bible.
(4) Is it biblically and theologically correct to speak of Acts 2:38 as the “plan of salvation?”
(5) How is that we can be justified by our faith (Romans) prior to baptize and yet not be “saved” until after baptism and speaking in tongues (Spirit baptism I know, but OPs don’t believe in spirit baptism until one speaks in tongues)? Once we are righteous before God (justified) will He cast us out?
(6) When exactly does regeneration occur?
(7) Is it not possible to work together, in spite of differing understandings of what occurs in baptism, so long as we agree on the Gospel, and the actual practice of baptism?
(8) When you get the chance check out this article on “Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament,” by Robert Stein in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. http://www.sbts.edu/Resources/Publications/Journal/Spring_1998.aspx. What do you think of it?
LikeLike
October 12, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Hi Jason,
I want to kind of piggy back off Chad’s question number 3. Since the Bible is our authority, I’m having a hard time understanding why you do not like the, “In the name of Jesus Christ I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?” To say that conveys both Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19. It is Jesus Christ who gives us the authority to make disciples and baptize in his name right? The person is recognizing Jesus authority while quoting what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19. If a person truly recognizes Jesus as Lord and Savior, do you believe they would not be saved if baptized in this manner? Don’t you think the person is baptized in Jesus name, using what Jesus said; both Biblical things (Acts 2:38 & Matthew 28:19)?
Thanks Jason,
Trent
LikeLike
October 12, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Jason,
I’ve thought more about your response to my original comments posted.
Here is perhaps a more clear answer to your specific question about the “hybrid” formula.
1. You state:
“Those who argue against hybrid formulas usually do so on the basis that it distorts the Biblical teaching, acting as if both “F,S,HS” and “Jesus’ name” are part of the intended formula, when in reality the only intended formula was “Jesus’ name.” How would you respond to that argument?” Are the hybrid forms compromising Biblical teaching—exchanging truth for pragmatism?
My response:
(i) If Jesus is related to the Godhead as we say He is, that Mt. 28:19 truly relates to Acts 2:38 as we say that it does, and that Jesus is the name referred to by “the name of the F, S, HS” then I’m not sure of the problem in connecting them in baptism.
(ii) How can speak of biblical distortions when what some is merely doing is essentially connecting two BIBLE verses? Mind you, in the exact way we teach it?
(iii) Again, I ask, how is this really any different from other “theology talk” we do when baptizing converts?
(iv) As far as motive of people using such “hybrid” formulas, it is easy to draw conclusions that someone is trying to take the easy road, but perhaps we should be careful.
(v) However, we should be very careful if pragmatism is the motive. Pragmatism is never a theological virtue, though it may often be an ecclesiological one (needed, required, and used more often than we may think)!
(vi) Perhaps our mindset is slightly distorted by thinking of an “intended formula” for baptism in the first place. The Bible doesn’t really handle it in the sense of a “formula.” Such terminology does it lend itself to thinking of it as magical. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves, why did God allow the diversity in the NT witness? Maybe it is because God is pointing us not to a mere ritual formula, but to an actual person, a living being, called upon and referred to in baptism. It is because that person is the One doing the work, being united with the person being baptized, receiving that person, forgiving that person, and the authority for the entire act of baptism. Thus baptism is “in the name of Jesus” because it’s all about Him. No other name, person, or authority makes sense biblically or theologically. His name should be called in baptism absolutely–it’s about Him and what He has DONE and is DOING presently for this person being baptized. He is the proper referent and authority for the act. But within that there is certainly allowed diversity, however slight. Thus, the diversity in the NT between “in the name of Jesus Christ,” and “into the Lord Jesus Christ.”
It’s not about rote recitation, but about an active calling upon the living God through Jesus Christ: “hey Jesus this person is now Yours!”
So many different combinations maybe valid so long as Jesus is called upon and so long as they are theologically and Biblical accurate. I don’t know, I’m just thinking here…
For instance, I can think of many variations on baptizing in Jesus’ name. What do you think of some of these:
“I baptize you into the name of Jesus Christ”
“I now baptize you in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
“I baptize you in Jesus name”
“I baptize you on the authority of Jesus Christ”
“I now baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ”
“I baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ who is God with us…” (would we freak out on this one? I don’t think we would. I think we’re jumpy when anyone begins to throw around the phrase “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”).
“The name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is that name Jesus. So I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus…”
…ad infinitum…
And, let’s link this post to an earlier one you made on OP apologetics to Trinitarians concerning baptism in Jesus name. I believe that an understanding of baptism in this way and explained in this way would perhaps win a wide hearing and positive response.
So, I’ve answered, please answer your own questions, what say you?
LikeLike
October 15, 2007 at 8:05 am
Isn’t there a different usage of the word “name” here, a personal name versus somebody’s authority?
If “name” means authority (eg, “I come in the name of King Richard”), and Jesus and F/S/HS are the same, then it shouldn’t make any difference which one you say. (Assuming, of course, that God realizes that He’s the one referred to by F/S/HS, which He surely does.)
If “name” means personal name, then only Jesus’s name should do, though it would raise questions about why God would tell people in scripture to baptize using the non-name F/S/HS.
The belief that there is a magical aspect to the pronunciation of Son’s name, as noted above, is problematic if His name was Yeshua and we call him Jesus. Surely there is no magic if you use the wrong name for God. The whole idea that there is magic in the pronunciation seems wrong to me, and pagan to boot.
The hybrid seems to switch the meanings of “name” from personal to authority. Strange, but I suppose it’s not necessarily improper. But would it accomplish what’s intended? Other denominations, such as Roman Catholicism, consider the intent behind the words. If the baptizer does not intend to baptize in the name of the trinitarian God, just to use the trinitarian formula while intending a oneness meaning, it may not be recognized as legitimate.
LikeLike
October 15, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Chad,
Those who use the hybrid formula are not speaking commentary, but fusing Jesus’ words together with the apostles’ words, and using the two as one single formula. The motivation for this seems to be their uncertainty as to which formula to use. They are playing it safe by using both. It is this uncertainty, and/or compromise that causes concern to many Oneness Pentecostals.
There are really two questions here. The first is whether hybrid formulas are genuine reflections of the intended Biblical formula, and should be accepted as equal to the traditional “exclusive” Jesus’ name formula. The second is whether someone can be saved if they were baptized by someone who used a hybrid formula. One might answer in the affirmative to the second question, and yet answer in the negative to the first. Or one might answer both in the affirmative or negative. It seems you would answer yes to the 2nd question, but no to the 1st. While you have reservations about hybrid formulas, you think one who was baptized with a hybrid formula is saved.
Thanks for the clarification on your view. You are right. It is true that “baptism is an outward sign of an inward work.” The reason we often attack that statement is not because the meaning as expressed by the words themselves is not true, but because those who use this line mean more than what they say via this line. They mean that baptism is an outward sign of an inward work already completed at repentance/faith, and thus baptism confers no new spiritual realities to the believer.
I agree with you that baptism is significant in ways we often have neglected in OP, but I’m not sure I agree with you about baptizing those who do not plan to attend the congregation in which they are baptized. I don’t even know if you model would have made sense in a 1st century context. When Paul baptized the Phillipian jailer, he did not do so in a church, and he did not first make him commit to going to Brother X’s church down the street after he was baptized. If baptism is part of the new birth, and the new birth is necessary for salvation, then we should baptize whoever wishes to be baptized regardless of where they are or will attend church. While people are often baptized in the church they will attend, it is not necessary because baptism is not part of church (local) membership. It is part of church (universal) membership.
I do agree with you that we should make sure someone understands the Gospel, the purpose of baptism, etc. before we baptize them. I also get frustrated when we take a newcomer from the alter immediately into the tank without much quizzing of his/her theological beliefs and commitment to Christianity.
Jason
LikeLike
October 16, 2007 at 6:08 am
Jason,
Wow! I actually think that we understand what each other is saying even if we may not agree in total. That is very unusual in the blogosphere–to be on the same page. Thanks for the irenic and gracious way you consider others responses and questions.
Please know that I in no way intended to say that the slight diversity in the NT on baptismal formulas can give way to baptizing in “the name of Mickey Mouse and Pluto.” I did qualify that to say that it must be theologically correct. My main point was that if the F,S,HS talk was commentary or “theology talk” and the baptism was done in Jesus name and He was the referent then I don’t see a big problem though it may not be wise. My secondary point was that what we say in baptism may not be best thought of as a formula but as a calling upon a living person, Jesus. And since a living person is identified by their name we must call on His name in baptism since He is the one at work and so and so forth. It is this line of argumentation that I thought would be useful in dialogue with Trinitarians not the use of hybrid formulas. Sorry for the confusion there.
As far as the connection between baptism and the local church, I do believe we should explore it more. I understand your distinction between the local church and the universal church, but my quick response to that would be to say that the local church is the face of the universal church locally!
And I largely agree with your responses to my barrage of questions. Thanks for this whole post!
Joyfully Yours,
Chad
LikeLike
October 16, 2007 at 7:46 am
My secondary point was that what we say in baptism may not be best thought of as a formula but as a calling upon a living person, Jesus. And since a living person is identified by their name we must call on His name in baptism since He is the one at work and so and so forth.
I don’t think that follows. If King Richard gives you the authority to knight people, I don’t think there’s any difference between saying I knight you “in the name of King Richard” or “in the name of the king and the crown.” I don’t know the legalities used in England, but it seems bizarre to think there would be any substantive difference.
As a historical matter, the traditional use was never “Jesus name” for baptism, but F/S/HS.
The Didache:
“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
Tatian the Syrian:
“Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world [Matt. 28:18-20]” (The Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).
Hippolytus:
“When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he that is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. Again shall he say: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh? The one being baptized then says: I believe. And so he is baptized a third time” (The Apostolic Tradition 21 [A.D. 215]).
Tertullian:
“After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at each several mention of their names” (Against Praxeas 26 [A.D. 216]).
Origen:
“Why, when the Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, does this apostle [Paul] employ the name of Christ alone in baptism, saying, We who have been baptized into Christ; for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity” (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).
The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena:
“Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, Jesus Christ, Son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water. And Paul said, We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost. After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ” (Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian of Carthage:
“He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can followwhen Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?” (Letters 73:18 [A.D. 253]).
Eusebius of Caesarea:
“We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth his disciples for the preaching, said, Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy” (Letter to the People of His Diocese 3 [A.D. 323]).
Cyril of Jerusalem:
“You were led by the hand to the holy pool of divine baptism, as Christ was carried from the cross to this sepulcher here before us [the tomb of Jesus at Jerusalem]. And each of you was asked if he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And you confessed that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and again ascended, and in this there was suggested by a symbol the three days of Christs burial” (Catechetical Lectures 20:4 [A.D. 350]).
Athanasius:
“And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, Go ye and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity (On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia 2:28 [A.D. 361]).
Basil the Great:
“The Holy Spirit, too, is numbered with the Father and the Son, because he is above creation, and is ranked as we are taught by the words of the Lord in the Gospel, Go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. He who, on the contrary, places the Spirit before the Son, or alleges him to be older than the Father, resists the ordinance of God, and is a stranger to the sound faith, since he fails to preserve the form of doxology which he has received, but adopts some newfangled device in order to be pleasing to men” (Letters 52:4 [A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan:
“Moreover, Christ himself says: I and the Father are one. One, said he, that there be no separation of power and nature; but again, We are, that you may recognize Father and Son, forasmuch as the perfect Father is believed to have begotten the perfect Son, and the Father and the Son are one, not by confusion of person, but by unity of nature. We say, then, that there is one God, not two or three gods” (The Faith 1:1[910] [A.D. 379]).
Gregory of Nazianz:
“But not yet perhaps is there formed upon your soul any writing good or bad; and you want to be written upon today. . . . I will baptize you and make you a disciple in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and these three have one common name, the Godhead. And you shall know, both by appearances and by words that you reject all ungodliness, and are united to all the Godhead” (Orations 40:45 [A.D. 380]).
Jerome:
“[S]eeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say that sins can be remitted among the Arians without the coming of the Holy Ghost? How is a soul purged from its former stains which has not the Holy Ghost?” (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 6 [A.D. 382]).
Gregory of Nyssa:
“And we, in receiving baptism . . . conceal ourselves in [the water] as the Savior did in the earth: and by doing this thrice we represent for ourselves that grace of the resurrection which was wrought in three days. And this we do, not receiving the sacrament in silence, but while there are spoken over us the names of the three sacred persons on whom we believed, in whom we also hope, from whom comes to us both the fact of our present and the fact of our future existence” (Sermon For the Day of Lights [A.D. 383]).
Augustine:
“Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has Christ for its authority, not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24 [57] [A.D. 400]).
“O Lord our God, we believe in you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the truth would not say, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless you were a Trinity” (The Trinity 15:28[51] [A.D. 408]).
Theodoret of Cyr:
“And what need is there of many words, when it is possible to refute falsehood in few? We provide that those who year by year come up for holy baptism should carefully learn the faith set forth at Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers; and initiating them as we have been bidden, we baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, pronouncing each name singly” (Letters 145 [A.D. 444]).
LikeLike
October 16, 2007 at 8:04 am
Since there is no passage in the New Testament that records what was actually said over someone in the act of baptism, such as, ‘he said I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ,” I personally think any attempt to determine which baptismal formula should be used is a moot point because we cannot conclude with any degree of certainity which baptismal formula was actually used.
Yes, the weight of the evidence does favor the ‘Jesus name’ formula over the Matthean formula, simply because one purpose of water baptism is to identify with the person of Jesus Christ in His death, burial & resurrection. However, in the final analysis, one cannot prove one baptism formula over the other.
LikeLike
October 16, 2007 at 10:02 am
Arthur,
What king issues a declaration that is not in his own name? Please show me one.
I understand your point that when someones says something like, “in the name of the king…” that it is assumed that the king referred is the sitting, reigning monarch. However, one does not see kings, queens, presidents, etc. speak generically of themselves or issuing declarations, proclamations, and legislation without using their actual name. Do you think President Bush signs legislation with “the President?” Or “George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States of America?” I don’t think your argument follows!
Furthermore, I don’t know what the fuss is if you agree that baptism is and accomplishes what I’ve described: forgiveness of sins and union with Christ. Baptism is all about Jesus, and is done in His authority. If the person being baptized is confessing Jesus as Lord and being united with Jesus AND if the person baptizing is standing in the place of Jesus, under His authority, receiving that person into the body of Christ why NOT use the name? That is, in my opinion, an immensely powerful theological argument. And there are two mountains of biblical evidence to overcome to in order to reject baptism using Jesus name: (1) the vast importance the Scriptures place on the name of God in the OT and the name of Jesus in the NT (names matter tremendously); (2) the actual practice indicated in the book of Acts and Paul’s language concerning baptism affirm baptizing using “in Jesus’ name” or something close using Jesus’ name explicitly and with the same theological content.
As far as tradition goes: so what? One can pile a mountain of quotes to the moon, but if they are wrong, what of it? And so what if they are wrong and old? Age adds nothing to error. Old error is still error.
Now, I love the history of Christianity in nearly every area. I even enjoy reading some of those you’ve quoted, I think there is something to learn from tradition and church history. For instance, I find the life of Augustine and Chrysostom interesting. But that’s history and biography, for theology and doctrine the Scriptures are the foundation and of prime importance.
My arguments follow from the assumption that the Scriptures are God’s fundamental revelation to us and the sole authority for the beliefs and practices of the Church. Many of the practices described in the quotes you’ve listed are vastly different from what one reads in Scripture and obviously so! Baptism explicitly into the name of the Trinity? How does it follow to move from a super-abundantly significant, used name (Jesus) in Scripture to something not even used in Scripture (explicit reference to a Trinity)? And a baptism of three immersions, once for each person of the Trinity? Where is that in Scripture? I think this shows the fallacy of using tradition rather (or even along with) than the Canon of Scripture as a pillar of theology. It is precisely this sort of confusion caused by Trinitarian dogma that the OP reacts to, and rightly so in my opinion.
LikeLike
October 16, 2007 at 10:41 am
I don’t think it is necessary, or even common, to specify the name of the king, queen, duke, etc. in making an official proclamation.
“One of the first measures of the German authorities in Holland in respect of the administration of justice was to eliminate the Queen as the ‘fountain of justice’ and to substitute, in judgments given by Dutch courts, for the usual formula ‘in the name of the Queen,’ that of ‘in the name of the Law.’ The formula which was thus put under ban was, according to Dutch law, obligatory only for official copies of judgments in civil matters as distinguished from criminal sentences.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=vznFjd2dT2EC&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=%22in+the+name+of+the+queen%22&source=web&ots=48GbRnxC_U&sig=XeFRoouZt2bm79Oje8ajDmgDPwY
I also saw this question at Yahoo! Answers and thought it appropriate:
“When people say stop in the name of the law….what is the name of the law?”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071015144401AA6o3UU
LikeLike
October 16, 2007 at 10:47 am
Forevertruth,
What is so unconvincing about the “weight of evidence?” If the weight of evidence goes with baptizing calling on the name of Jesus, then why not go with it? If Scripture is not ambiguous concerning who the Savior is, then is there really any question on who to call in baptism?
Of course, proving something is tricky. You have to understand the nature of proof within the area of knowledge (“science”) concerned. Scientific proof is one, a mathematical proof is another, and textual proof, as in interpreting texts such as the Constitution and the Bible, is another. Here we are speaking of Scripture as the text under consideration.
As far as what the text of Scripture says the burden of proof is definitely on those arguing against “in Jesus’ name” invocations. The refrain is rather constant and consistent in the book of Acts (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). An interesting verse in this regard is Acts 22:16 where it mentions calling on the name in baptism. As far as Matthew 28:19 goes, the name is singular and the authority declared in vs. 18-20 is specifically given to Jesus. All of these passages plus Paul’s discussions (or mere mentions) of baptism (Romans 6:1-4, 1 Co. 1:10-17, Gal. 3:26-29) and conversion (Romans 10:5-13) and the Scriptural significance of Jesus’s name (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31, Acts 4:12, Colossians 3:17, Philippians 2:9-11, etc…) combine to make a very forceful biblical and theological argument for baptism performed by explicitly invoking or calling upon the name of Jesus. That seems like sufficient “proof” to me.
LikeLike
October 16, 2007 at 11:31 am
Arthur,
You are reaching for straws!
I understand how in lengthy legal documents and for certain common circumstances phrases such as “in the name of the king” or “in the name of the law” might be substituted as shorthand but come on, what you think is necessary or appropriate doesn’t really matter in the end! Official declarations and signed legislations are done with the actual name of the authority governing or ruling. Why do you think all those people stand around the President when he signs documents? What are they expecting to see? Have you ever examined the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Magna Carta?
Baptism is a declaration by the baptized person of allegiance to a particular Lord and it is done by the baptizer in the stead of a particular Sovereign. Makes sense to use His name, why argue otherwise?
Please, with all due respect, this line of argumentation is a dead-end. It is begging otherwise in the face of all the biblical evidence and theological arguments piled up in that 15 or so posts.
That’s all I’ve got to say about that.
LikeLike
October 16, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Chad,
The baptisms we’re talking about aren’t performed by Jesus, they’re performed by proxies.
Arthur
LikeLike
October 17, 2007 at 9:26 am
I can see there has been a lot of discussion here since my last post. Let me attempt to respond.
Chad,
I know you did not intend to say that the slight variations in the Acts formula can result in the Mickey Mouse formula. My point was just that there is a difference between variation and change. The distinction is similar to the difference between micro-evolution (variation within a species) and macro-evolution (a change of one species into another).
I agree with you that the formula is not intended to be a magical incantation, but a calling on a person. I would only emphasize that the fact that the formula is a personal invocation of sorts does not render it any less of a formula.
Jason
LikeLike
October 17, 2007 at 9:27 am
Arthur,
It might help if you go back in time a little bit more…to the NT! No one questions that the triune baptismal formula became commonplace by the 3rd century, but many scholars are also honest about the fact that this was a departure from the practice of the early church, including both the NT era and the post-apostolic era.
Jason
LikeLike
October 17, 2007 at 9:33 am
Forevertruth,
No, the NT does not phrase it in such a way as you did: “And he said, ‘I baptize you…”, but it doesn’t need to. The references to “in the name of Jesus” in Acts read like formulaic expressions (with the possible exception of Acts 8).
According to James 2:7, the believers had a name invoked over them, and many commentators agree that James is referring back to their baptism. It seems pretty clear to me that there was a formula used, and it involved the name of Jesus.
Jason
LikeLike
October 17, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Jason,
The NT has two different baptismal formulas, one Jesus name and the other the name of the F/S/HS. If we just use Scripture, then there’s no way to determine what is right. Additionally, we don’t know whether either of these formulas were the words actually spoken, or just different ways of describing the same thing (a Christian baptism). We look to history to see how early Christians understood the Scriptures and how the apostles taught them to practice the faith, as presumably their understanding of Christianity and the Scriptures should be better than ours.
I know, some claim that the gates of Hell prevailed against the church almost immediately, and the true church and true Christianity ceased to exist for about 2000 years until “real Christianity” was rediscovered. (Some claiming there was a remnant of whatever beliefs they happen to hold, but having no evidence of any such remnant.) Personally, I think it’s hard to believe that an issue so crucial to salvation could be misunderstood for 2000 years.
I think it’s fine to use Scripture only, if that’s your inclination, but I don’t think you should refer to that as “historical” evidence backing up your interpretation of Scripture.
Arthur
LikeLike
October 17, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Jason,
Here is another interesting question, and perhaps its just too quirky, but it might make an interesting post of its own on your blog.
Can a person baptize his or her self?
This is the proverbial man on the island, but this time he has a Bible, and converts on the island all alone…
LikeLike
October 18, 2007 at 9:13 am
Hi Chad,
I wouldn’t mind hearing you comment on a person being baptized with someone saying, “In the name of Jesus I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Going by your earlier posts it appears that you are not as concerned with formula but more concerned with personal and expressed belief that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Would you object if someone were baptized in this manner?
Trent
LikeLike
October 18, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Trent,
You are correct that I have shifted focus from a formula to a person as far as what is invoked in baptism. My reason for doing so is to ensure that we are not thinking of an exactness which might be related to some concepts of “formula.” In other words, there is obviously a range of words which can be used to call upon Jesus in baptism and I’ve mentioned some of the possibilities in a previous post.
After thinking over all this, I think it may be best to say that what is invoked in baptism is “formulaic” as Jason has said, rather than an exact formula. Of particular note is the constant phrase connected with baptism of “in the name of…” I think we’ve pretty much exhausted what this means as far as authority and union with Christ, etc., in the posts above.
The one issue is the relation of Matthew 28:19 to all the other mentions of “in the name…” in Acts. I believe it very safe to say that since Matthew 28:19 is referring to a singular name and the explicit authority in those verses is that of Jesus’s and given that Jesus is the one way to the Father, and He is the one who pours out the Spirit, AND given that every other “in the name of…” refers explicitly to Jesus, that “the name” in Mt. 28:19 is the name of Jesus. Do a search in the NT using a Bible program on the phrase “in the name of,” or even the simpler, “the name,”, or even the word “name” alone, and see what you find both concerning baptism and other things such as exorcism, healing, and preaching. For instance, I think if you interpret Matthew 28:19 in the context of the entire Gospel of Matthew itself one can arrive at the same conclusion considering Mt. 1:21-25, 7:22, 12:17-21, 18:5, 18:20, 21:9, 23:39, 24:5. Jesus has no problem in Matthew speaking of His authority as being in “my name” (18:5, 20). I think He is doing the same thing in Matthew 28:19, or least, what the Evangelist Matthew intended (if Jesus didn’t say the exact words, ipsissima verba vs. ipsissima vox).
Of the two hybrid formulas mentioned by Jason, the “in the name of Jesus I baptize you in the name of…” makes less sense to me than the other because of the odd repetition of “in the name of…in the name of…” I wouldn’t advise that as the Bible exclusively uses a simple “in the name of…”
I say all that to affirm that I believe it biblical, theologically accurate, and correct church practice to explicitly invoke Jesus Christ over a person being baptized with a straightforward, “…in the name of [Lord and/or Savior] Jesus [Christ]…”
As far as the salvific effectiveness of the hybrid “formula” I cannot answer per se, it does use the “in the name of Jesus,” but I don’t want to muddle what I believe Scripture to be clear on. I would lean towards saying that the baptism is valid, because Jesus Christ is the referent of the baptism, but I believe it best to conform with Scripture and avoid confusion by using the actual practice I’ve now recommended several times. There is always a danger involved in exploring hypothetical questions given our inclinations toward sin and deception and we should consider the motivations of our own hearts carefully and prayerfully and give priority to weight of evidence.
So in actual practice I would not re-baptize someone who simply told me they were baptized in the name of Jesus and understood themselves to have been baptized so. In actual baptisms in which I am conducting or a part of, I would simply use “in the name of Jesus…”
I would also say that even if someone doesn’t hold that baptism has salvific import, wouldn’t one who feared God desire to obey Scripture and please God? So that if one agrees with baptism as I’ve outlined it, what would be the argument keeping one from practicing baptism so?
LikeLike
October 18, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Forevertruth,
It seems that some commentators disagree with you about whether or not we can know what was said in baptism. I did not have the time for a comprehensive review of all commentaries on Acts but I did check some in my spare time.
Ernst Haenchen says simply: “the name ‘Jesus Christ’ is pronounced over the candidate” (The Acts of the Apostles, A Commentary, Westminster Press, 1977, p. 184).
F.F. Bruce, certainly an Biblical scholar to be reckoned with, states: “It is administered ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’-not only by his authority but also, probably, in the sense that his name was invoked or confessed by the person being baptized (cf. 22:16). In addition, the person who administered the baptism appears to have named the name of Jesus over converts as they were being baptized (cf. 15:17” (The Book of the Acts, NICNT, Eerdmans, 1988, p. 70).
Doubtless, one will find a great variety of opinions in commentaries but one doesn’t have to read many to find major commentators saying that the early church baptized invoking the name of Jesus. Darrell Bock just published a new commentary on Acts in the BECNT and I look forward to reviewing it.
Also, of note is D.A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Matthew 28:19. He readily acknowledges the apparent problem between that verse and the book of Acts. His resolution is rather vague but he does admit: “…the only evidence we have of actual Christian baptisms indicates a consistent monadic formula-baptism in Jesus’ name (Acts 2:38, 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; similarly passages such as Rom 6:3).” (Gaebelein, Frank, ed. Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8. Zondervan, 1984. p. 598).
LikeLike
October 19, 2007 at 11:22 am
Arthur,
You are treating Mt 28:19 and the references in Acts as equal. I don’t think we should. The grammar of Mt 28:19, as well as the context of the book of Matthew suggest that Jesus did not mean for us to repeat His words, but to interpret them to refer to His name. And when we find in Acts that the apostles, in fact, interpreted his words in such a fashion, we are on firm footing. The apostles never used Jesus’ words as a formula. They only used the name of Jesus.
How can you dismiss the book of Acts as genuine church history? On what grounds would you do so?
Jason
LikeLike
October 19, 2007 at 11:23 am
Chad,
I like your term “formulaic.” It does not deny the formulaic nature of the phrase, “in the name of Jesus,” and yet it also makes it more clear that this is no magical incantation.
Jason
LikeLike
October 19, 2007 at 11:49 am
See what you guys think of this manner of a batismal proclamation:
“I hereby baptize you in the name of the F, S, & HS, which is made manifest in the person, Jesus Christ.”
With that said, I don’t think the words of the formula is the key here, but our understanding of who God is and who it is that we are being united with.
Zach
LikeLike
October 19, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Is it acceptable? *hmmm-sigh* – I rather say that is NOT how it was intended. I also believe that those hybrids imply uncertainty of heart and possible incorrect understanding…or even…heresy/false doctrine (it depends!!)
My explanation: at Pentecost, when the hearts are pricked and the observers ask what they must do, Peter responds that every one of them is to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins, and they would receive the Holy Ghost.
Let us think about it: of the observers, which one of them would have said, “OH NO PETER! mmm, you are wrong. We are to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit! OR at least say the name of Jesus in there SOMEwhere pleeeease! THANKS!” —-? I would say none of them. Why? Answer in one moment.
What about Acts 8:16 where it mentions they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus – would any of them had objected and suggesting the triune wording or a hybrid of sorts instead? Once again, I say no (I realize this is speculation on what they woulda, coulda, shoulda said, but I am going somewhere with it)— In fact, what about Acts 10:48? WHAT ABOUT ANY NT baptismal reference post the Gospels? Ok, now my point.
From the scriptures, the hearers who were receiving the Gospel would have ONLY KNOWN to be water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because THAT is how it was presented to them from the very beginning! No where do we see Peter or Philip of Paul or anyone speak about being baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. They always spoke instructed to be baptized in the name that IS the manifestation of God as Father, Son, Holy Spirit = Jesus Christ. So therefore, biblical-times speaking, all that was known was the name of Jesus Christ in regards to baptism (and other areas of course)…the triune wording or a hybrid used as a formula would have been foreign. However, the understanding of the name which represents God as F,S,HG was clearly understood: Jesus Christ.
Fast forward to these times. Now the scriptures are available to everyone…for everyone to interpret correctly or incorrectly. To me, the triune formula saying AS WELL as the hybrid can heavily be a result of either a) a lack of understanding or undevelooped of incorrect perception of who God is/Godhead — or b) erroneous compromise or c) flat out heresy/false doctrine ( I realise that a and c are SOMEwhat related, but c to me is very agressive in the sense that the stance is not from ignorance, but from more so rejecting that which is true – even after being enlightened)…
Do I think someone who is baptized with such a hybrid formual is saved? This question is difficult and almost “tricky” – lol. Well let me say this (as I somewhat dodge the question, choosing not to give a defined YES or NO)- the first example you gave, I believe that is basically the truth in the sense that Jesus Christ is the name that has been given as the manifestation of God as F,S,HS. BUT I would not baptize that way -notice what is being said in that hybrid wording – ok, if the name IS Jesus Christ, then why not just say Jesus Christ? You can sense the uncertainty and compromise in that wording. It’s like they want to say Jesus Christ, BUT JUST IN CASE, mention F,S,HS too, for extra measure and safety 🙂
If I am a Father, A Son, and a Husband, and I KNOW what my name is, when I am asked for my name, I will state it. I call a restaurant to make reservations and they ask for the name of the party. I would not say, “Please put it in the name of Mike B, in the name Father, and of Son, and of Husband,” ??? While I am those other things in my interactions, they aren’t my NAME. FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST are not THE NAME(S) given under heaven that we must be saved – but Jesus Christ is the name OF He who is Father, Son, Holy Ghost – God, who is Jesus Christ (a little redundant there, sorry).
As for the second hybrid example you gave, where in the NT post Gospels do we see them do anything in that fashion? Predominantly, it’s always, in the name of Jesus Christ or some variation in the sense LORD might be added or simply spoken is Christ or just Jesus. But I have myself have NOT read where they cast out demons or gave greetings or anything of such by saying, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost to come out of her demon!” ??? OR “in the name of Jesus Christ, I greet you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” —??? — or “in the name of Jesus Christ, be healed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” —??? OR “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,(will add here), [in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit] (end of addition) giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” ??? (Colossians 3:17, with additions)…oh my, no no no.
I agree with what you said Jason – that Matthew 28 was not to be spoken word for word, but to be interpreted as JESUS CHRIST, so therefore Jesus Christ should be spoken. That is what the initial hearers of the Gospel received, and I do not see why that should be changed for these times.
LikeLike
October 23, 2007 at 6:19 pm
It seems that the so called Formula is not hybrid at all. The formula is “the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” and the rest of it…the part about Jesus name is invoking upon which authority one has either to baptize and or to use that formula
LikeLike
October 24, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Zach,
The focus of your proposed formula is on F,S,HS. The part about Jesus is just offered as an elaborative explanation of F,S,HS. That seems to miss the point. Why not just stick with “In the name of Jesus Christ” like the early church did?
Jason
LikeLike
October 24, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Jevan,
Unfortunately for your position, F,S,HS was never used as a baptismal formula in the Bible.
Jason
LikeLike
October 25, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Jason, I was not saying it was a formula in the bible. Im talking about the hybrid. The F,S,HG portion would be their actual formula and the name of Jesus would be the authority in which they baptize.
In other words it seems they are combining what they think is the forumal with the authority to baptize using that formula.
LikeLike
October 26, 2007 at 1:02 am
Jevan,
Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Jason
LikeLike
September 2, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Hi Jason,
I might have missed the answer upon reading the 33 comments. Could you please clarify if OP’s generally believe that it is necessary to be baptized again if one was originally baptized, “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”?
Thank you,
Shea
LikeLike
September 3, 2009 at 10:32 am
Shea,
Yes, that is the opinion of most OPs.
Jason
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I am subscribing to receive follow-up comments and I am asked to leave a comment.
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Praise the Lord Bro Dulle,
As you have previously stated,
“There are really two questions here. The first is whether hybrid formulas are genuine reflections of the intended Biblical formula, and should be accepted as equal to the traditional “exclusive” Jesus’ name formula?”
As it has been previously demonstrated,
upon using sound Biblical hermeneutics in order to exegete the text properly,
also taking into consideration the authoritative apostolic interpretation of the words of Christ in the treatise of Acts,
and also considering the late development of the triune baptismal formula,
the answer to this question has to be emphatically no.
Hybrid baptismal formulas should not
be accepted as equal to the traditional
“exclusive” Jesus name formula.
I know that this is in line with your theological position on this question.
But what is your position
as it relates to the soteriological nature of hybrid baptismal formulas?
In your estimation, are they efficacious enough to produce a spiritual union with Christ and forgive sins when administered to a baptismal candidate that has legitimately placed their faith in Jesus Christ and repented prior to baptism?
As you stated in your second question,
“Can someone be saved if they were baptized by someone who used a hybrid formula?”
As baptismal remissionist
the answer to this question is eternally paramount.
God bless.
Milton
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Milton,
Good question. We are in the area of speculation here, but my answer would be that such a formula would still be efficacious. After all, they are indeed being baptized in Jesus’ name. The fact that something else gets tacked on too cannot change the fact that the proper formula is found within everything that was said.
Jason
LikeLike
March 28, 2018 at 9:56 am
While i am baptized in the name of Jesus i dont think that other believers are not saved because of the formula. Otherwise Jesus should not baptize the with His Spirit too!
LikeLike
March 28, 2018 at 10:09 am
IT’S CALLED RELIGIOUS RITUALISMS AND MEANS nothing
Here is what really means something…you are correct in your post.
“Hence when Christ entered into the world he said sacrifices and offerings you have not desired”; in other words, the pragmatic, externals of mere religion are not satisfying to you Father. It isn’t that a man goes once a week in a piece of real estate. Or simply undergoes as a matter of tradition and form certain sacraments. Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired but instead Father you have made ready a body for me to offer you, father.
That is the important thing to remember:
“………..you have made ready a body for me to offer you, father.”
LikeLike
October 26, 2018 at 2:30 pm
Hi Jason,
This is an old post, I know, but I believe it is very invaluable for the continuous “new issue” that concerns us in Oneness-Trinitarian relations. I would answer your question on whether someone would be saved in such a manner in the affirmative. This is because although we could understand Father, Son and Spirit pronounced over baptism to be inaccurate of what the Apostles did, we would validate such a formulation of speaking over the baptized because Jesus is mentioned nonetheless.
My major gripe with our Oneness circles is that we are not treat baptismal formulations as ‘magical.’ Meaning that Jesus pronounced over the baptized person is not going to magically change the way baptism is administered or what God would do in the tank, but that baptism in a Christocentric formulation is theologically accurate and is ‘apostolic’ according to what the early Church practiced.
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
October 26, 2018 at 5:48 pm
A.J.:
Here’s a few thoughts:
Not an average philosopher or theologian? You are on a good track to cut a path. Jesus was not a typical philosopher or theologian either especially not a theologian because Jesus did not accept the theist point of view; in other words,
Jesus was an atheist and here’s why.
The theist, the religious, all religions in general were founded on magic and superstition that was manifested by ritual obsession. You don’t have to look far to see the sacrifices, the offerings, sacraments,(baptism) repetitious praying, signing of the cross, wearing forehead ashes, hen pecking at the wailing wall, finger beading on circular strings, genuflecting, head bowing.
Jesus would none of those things. And not only did he not accept those superficial, non existent supernatural flavors of your favorite denomination, he railed against them and the perpetrators of them, the clerics who were schooled in ancient seminaries called Sons of the Prophets. Where they learned how to become regurgitators of ritualistic religion following footsteps of fantasy phantom promoters. Bingo they graduated as Prophets. The entire Chapter of Matthew 23 is devoted to the indictment of religion and the Clerics in the hierarchy for practicing ritualistic laws from supernatural gods. And this across all nations, people and tongues.
Because that was and is the way of religion catering to the mythological gods of man’s creation naming the planets after their god myths. Those planet names live on today in the 21st century as do the religious symbols of superstition and magic in ancient religions. How long will it take to let it go, leave it behind, it’s a ball and chain. Mars, Saturn, Neptune and the like….
Conscience clauses(legal clauses) attached to laws in some parts of the United States and other countries which permit pharmacists, physicians, and/or other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religious conscience are anathema to secular education, knowledge, reason, common sense, progressive civilization.
And it’s about what they believe about reality and more importantly what they want to do with those beliefs. I mean if that’s all it was; just a belief; well, then I’d have no problem giving religion all the respect it wants.
But religion is more than just a belief, religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what’s got us into the mess that we’re in.
The Universe is fine, it’s just Earth that is mentally ill.
LikeLike
November 5, 2018 at 10:30 am
A.J. I agree that the formula is not magical, but theological. It has theological significance, but it is not what mediates the spiritual realities (faith does). It describes what is happening in the water, namely that the person is being identified with Jesus in His death, burial, and resurrection. And for that reason, it is important, just like the other symbolic elements of baptism: the water, the immersion.
LikeLike
December 15, 2018 at 8:47 am
As a trinitarian, I do believe in baptism in jesus name. However, I would accept the 2nd formula that you offered.
I would propose that we baptize this way. After we ask the person to affirm the Apostles Creed we say
“on the account of your faith in Jesus Christ, by the authority and in the name of Christ, for the forgiveness of sins; I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ and into the Father, and into the Son and the Holy Spirt. “
LikeLike
December 15, 2018 at 12:34 pm
Well hath Esaias prophesied of you ……….. as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips,
“I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is the name of Jesus Christ.”
“In the name of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
“on the account of your faith in Jesus Christ, by the authority and in the name of Christ, for the forgiveness of sins; I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ and into the Father, and into the Son and the Holy Spirt. “
“……. in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men……..but their heart is far from me”.
“……… ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do…….”
Hebrews in chapter 10 .
“Hence when Christ entered into the world he said sacrifices and offerings you have not desired”; in other words, the pragmatic, externals of mere religion are not satisfying to you Father. It isn’t that a man goes once a week in a piece of real estate. Or simply undergoes as a matter of tradition and form certain sacraments.(Baptism and the like) Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired but instead Father you have made ready a body for me to offer you, father. “Then I said” verse 7, “Lo here I am come to do your will oh God, to fulfill what is written of me in the volume of the book. The volume of what book? Well the Old Testament Scriptures.
LikeLike