I’ve been giving some additional thought to the traditional OP interpretation of Matthew 28:19, particularly our emphasis on the importance of the singular nature of “name.” We argue that if Jesus meant for us to actually invoke three names over the baptizee (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), He should have used the plural form, “names.” Instead, He used the singular form, “name,” which is grammatically incorrect. Why did He do so? Because He only had one name in view. The disciples properly discerned that name to be His name-Jesus-and used His name exclusively in their baptismal formula. They obeyed, rather than repeated Jesus’ words.
I’m not so sure our emphasis on the singular form of “name” is justified. The use of the singular “name” is grammatically justifiable. “Of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is a string of three genitival phrases modifying “name.” It could be argued that the prepositional phrase, “in the name,” is implied for both the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that the intended sense of the verse is, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and [in the name] of the Son, and [in the name] of the Holy Spirit.” It would be similar to my saying, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and the queen, and the motherland.” Here, the singular use of “name” is justified because “in the name of” is implied for both the queen and the motherland. The sentence should really read, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and [the name of] the queen, and [the name of] the motherland.” If the same is true of Matthew 28:19, then the singular “name” is being applied to each of the three appellations individually, and hence the singular use of name is grammatically justified.
If I am right, then making an ado over the singular use of “name” as an obvious signal that Jesus meant for the disciples to pick up on some deeper meaning is misguided, and irrelevant to understanding how Matthew 28:19 squares with the baptismal formula used by the apostles in Acts.
If I am right, how should we understand what Jesus said against what the apostles did? Why did they baptize in Jesus’ name? What clued them in to the fact that Jesus did not mean for them to literally repeat His words? If it wasn’t His singular use of “name,” maybe it was what Jesus said before speaking those controversial words. He prefaced His command to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the F/S/HS by saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore…” (28:18). After He issued His command He continued to speak exclusively of Himself: “Teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always” (28:20). The emphasis was on Christ alone. Together with the disciples recognition that Jesus encapsulates our experience of God, they understood His words to mean that they were to baptize in His name. The authority (name) in which we are baptized is the same as the one who just claimed all authority in heaven and earth: Jesus Christ. It is for that reason that we are baptized in His name.
Whether it was due to the singular use of “name,” or the context of Jesus’ command, the fact remains that the apostles understood Jesus to mean they were to baptize in His name, and we should follow their lead.
Any thoughts? Any grammatical or theological insights?
UPDATE: Someone emailed me a link to an article by a Oneness Pentecostal making the same points I made here, but in expanded form. The author, Mark Kennicott, also exegetes some of the key passages cited in support of the conclusion that Jesus is the singular name of the Father and Spirit. Check it out.
Thinking to Believe 
December 5, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Grammatically speaking (according to Granville Sharp’s rule as commonly referenced by Trinitarians), the presence of the definite article “the” before Father, Son and Holy Spirit, along with the fact that all three are connected by “kai” (and), seems to indicate three distinct persons, not one person. Thus, according to this grammatical rule, the singular use of “name” in Matt. 29:19 implies that each has a different name, and not the same name.
However, there is one exception to Granville Sharp’s rule:
“Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeable to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule…the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate.”
The exception is basically when the context actually names a single individual to whom the other nouns are attributed. The best example of this exception is Thomas’ exclamation to Jesus, “My Lord and My God.” (the Lord of me and the God of me). But, it is clearly stated in the context that Thomas is referring to Jesus.
This begs the question, does Matt. 28:19 qualify for the exception, since no one else is named in the context to whom the titles “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” point directly too. I personally believe it does, especially in light of the fact that the “opening declaration of Mt. 28:18 demands a Christological statement to follow it: ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me’ leads us to expect as a consequence, ‘Go and make disciples unto Me among all the nations, baptizing them in My name, teaching them to observe all I commanded you.'” (Beasley-Murray, p. 83).
Of course, there is a theological basis going on here as well, especially because some prominent Trinitarians are more than willing to recognize the significance of the singular name in Matthew 28:19, although apparently not associating it with baptism in the name of Jesus (they associate it with the Old Testament name of God—Yahweh). What they fail to realize or intellectually accept is that the name of God as revealed in the New Testament is Jesus, which incorporates YHWH but further identifies Him as Savior.
Thus only the name Jesus qualifies for singular name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit because only He encapsulates the sum total of the one Divine being as He exists in His three permanent modes of subsistence (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (according to Colossians 2:9-11, we are buried (baptized) with the one in whom all of the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily).
John
LikeLike
December 7, 2007 at 1:53 pm
John,
Great post! I have a couple of questions about statements made in your last paragraph.
1)Three permanent modes of existence. Can you explain how the mode of the Father is distinct from that of the Spirit?
2) Are you saying that the name of the Father is Jesus, and the name of the Son is Jesus, and the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus? IOW God have one name and three manifestations.
LikeLike
December 7, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Anonymous,
Just to clarify before I answer your questions: when I made mention about the Father, Son & Holy being “three permanent modes of existence,” I want to make it clear that I believe it is only correct (as I understand it) to speak of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit after the Incarnation. Before the Incarnation, God was eternally Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.
Now to your question about explaining how the the mode of the Father is distinct from that of the Spirit. Since there is only one Spirit, and since Deity (God) cannot be fragmented or compartmentalized, ontologically speaking (i.e., pertaining to the nature and essential properties of existence), then, there is no difference between God’s mode (for lack of a better term) of existence as Father and His mode of existence as Holy Spirit. The only difference (as I understand it), is relational, in the sense that the word “Father” refers primarily to God in His transcendence, in His aboveness, and beyondness as it relates to His created realm; whereas, the word “Holy Spirit” refers to God in His immanence, that is, His presence and activity among His creation.
Regarding your second question about the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit being “Jesus.” I am not saying that the name “Jesus” is the appellation by which the Father is known by. Rather, I understand “name” to be synonymous with “person”. In other words, “name” was simply a Hebraism for “person.” To the Hebrews, it was impossible to separate a person from his name. In a very real sense, a person was his name. For example, “You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy” (Rev. 3:4, NKJV). Here, the name and person are identical. Another example can be found in Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” Here again, “name” is a Hebraism referring to the “person” of Christ. The soteriological significance is not on uttering the name Jesus, but on the “person” of Jesus.
With that in mind, I understand Jesus in this passage to be telling His disciples, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (person) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Apparently, the disciples understood it the same way, for they both commanded and baptized converts in Jesus’ name as recorded in the book of Acts. That the Epistles also confirm the fact that the disciples baptized their converts in Jesus’ name can be seen by Paul’s pointing out to the Corinthians who were dividing themselves into factions (some were of Apollos, some of Cephas [Peter], some of Paul, and some of Christ) that they were baptized in Jesus’ name, not in Paul’s (I Cor. 1:13-15).
In short, since the name Jesus incorporates God’s Old Testament name–Yahweh, with the added identification as Savior (Yahweh-Savior), and since the word “Son” refers to the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh) manifest in human existence, and since the New Testament even refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:4), then I don’t think it would be technically incorrect to identify Jesus as the name (person) who is at once the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To say it directly as possible, I believe Jesus meant, “I have all power or authority, so baptize in my name (person).”
Hope this helps.
John
LikeLike
March 17, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Progressive revelation is a well-known feature of Scripture. As Payne says, “…God graciously unfolded both His redemption and His revelation in ways corresponding to man’s capacities to receive them.” The patriarchs knew the name of Yahweh, but the fullness of its significance was hidden from them (Exodus 6:3). As God unfolded more of His character to His people, His name took on additional significance. Thus, it is clear God wanted His people to associate the revelation of His nature with His name.
The name of Jesus was deliberately ordained by God to signify salvation (Mt. 1:21); the name *Jesus* literally means Yahweh is (or has become) salvation; it was prophesied the Gentiles would trust in His name (Mt. 12:21); repentance and remission of sins are to be preached in His name (Luke 24:47); it is the only name whereby we can be saved (Acts 4:12); and it is through His name we receive the remission of sins (Acts 10:43).
If Jesus is GOD manifest in the flesh, and if God reveals Himself in the person of Jesus (II Cor. 4:6), then it stands to reason that the name of Jesus represents the fullness of God’s progressive revelation of Himself to mankind. Jesus is the epitome, the capstone, of God’s love to mankind (I John 3:16). Thus, the name of Jesus is not only the name of Nazarene, it is the revealed name of God. And if it is the revealed name of God, then the name of Jesus is as much the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as Yahweh was the name of the Godhead in the Old Testament.
Best wishes,
Scalia
LikeLike
March 19, 2009 at 1:18 am
Scalia,
Welcome to the blog!
I agree with everything except for your last sentence (and even then, I can agree with a certain take on it). But even if I fully agreed with your last sentence, what you’ve said does nothing to detract from the point of this post. My point is that the grammatical singularity of “name” is not theologically significant. Most Oneness adherents make a big deal over the fact that “name” is singular, claiming that it is grammatically incorrect, and that this was Jesus’ veiled way of telling His disciples to baptize converts in His name alone. My point is that it is not grammatically incorrect, and thus this point fails. Yes, Jesus meant for us to baptize in His name, but this conclusion follows from data other than the singularity of “name” in Mt 28:19.
Jason
LikeLike
March 19, 2009 at 8:24 am
Jason,
Thank you for your reply. My comments relate not only to this post, but to another post wherein you question whether Jesus is the name of the Father. My point is it cannot be otherwise.
I believe OP (I count myself one) correctly observe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not proper names. If I say, “Sign these documents in the names of Jason Dulle, of Ronald Reagan and of Davy Crockett,” then *those* names should appear on the document. However, if I say, “Sign these documents in the name of the butcher, and of the baker, and of the candlestick maker,” and if the butcher, baker and candlestick maker is Jason Dulle, and if the one receiving that instruction has your power of attorney, then the name Jason Dulle will appear on the document.
I think “name” IS theologically significant given the fact that Jesus is the only name by which we are saved and is, in fact, the name of the Godhead. Context determines the significance, and the context of the biblical record is that THE NAME is Jesus.
As an aside, does your site accept HTML tags?
Best wishes,
Scalia
LikeLike
March 29, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Scalia,
“YHWH” is what most theologians would consider the name of God (this name is incorporated into the name of Jesus, so if you do not accept YHWH as being the name of God, then neither is “Jesus” the name of God), but even this is not a proper name! It’s just a sentence (“He is”) describing something about God (namely His aseity). Most names for God are like this. They are descriptors. When you think about it, even “Jesus” is a descriptor of sorts. It means “He is salvation.”
Yes, Father, Son, and Spirit are not proper names. But when you look at the way those terms are used in Scripture, they are used as proper names. So even if properly speaking “Father” is a title, it was used as a proper name.
You also need to understand what many call “Hebrew name theology.” “Name” often stands for the person themselves, their authority, power, etc. We can’t read “name” in the Bible and think “proper name.” That is a misunderstanding of the ancient-near-east concept of name. See my article on this topic at http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/name.htm. The importance of this is that we can’t read Mt 28:19, and conclude that because Jesus said “name,” we must be looking for a proper name in which to baptize. That’s not how they would have understood Him. They would have understood Him to be referring to “authority” or “person.” So should we. Again, I think we are to be baptized in Jesus’ name, and Jesus is a proper name. But I don’t think the traditional “he said ‘name,’ and F,S,HS are not names” approach to this passage is either sufficient, nor necessary to justify baptism in the name of Jesus exclusively.
As for HTML tags, I have no idea what those even are. I am not very web savvy.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 30, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Jason,
I made it clear in my first post that Yahweh is the OT name of God, so I just don’t know what you’re getting at. Perhaps you’re replying to somebody else?
Actually, practically all ancient names are descriptors. Names were not given like they are in the United States. You say most theologians would consider YHWH the name of God and you then say even that is not a proper name. Really? Most theologians do not consider Yahweh to be God’s proper name, or is that your personal opinion? And if Yahweh was not God’s proper name, then what was?
I would venture to say I’ve read the Bible as many times as you have and couldn’t disagree more. Nowhere is “Father” called God’s name, yet the Bible specifically calls Yahweh His name. We often use Dad or Mom in place of our parents’ names, but that does not imply those titles are their names.
I say this with all due respect, but you appear a bit patronizing. For the record, I am very familiar with “name theology.” I suggest you refrain from assuming that mere disagreement implies ignorance.
That depends upon the context. The terms proper name and title are modern ways of categorizing “descriptors.” Hence, when the angel said, “Thou shalt call his name JESUS” he wasn’t merely saying, “Thou shalt call his authority he is salvation.” Zacharias didn’t say, “His authority is John;” he was really saying that his son’s proper name is John.
By the way, the link you provided takes me to Bro. Arnold’s article on Jesus’ name baptism, not your article. The only article I found where you addressed this issue is entitled Yahweh or Jesus: What is God’s Name?”, but since it is so short, I hardly see how it augments your argument. All I see are bald assertions. The Hebrew and Greek uses the same word name to describe God’s name as they do personal (proper) names. In that article, you question whether God would actually have a Hebrew name long before there were any Hebrews. That is, however, speculative. God is eternal, so He never just came up with the name Yahweh. He eternally intended to reveal that name to Old Testament believers and eternally intended to put that same name into the full revelation of Himself to mankind – the name of Jesus. If that was His eternal purpose, and if His name is something special to Him, it makes sense He had/has an eternal name. I assume you are referring to another article wherein you fully examine this issue and buttress your assertions with scholarly support. I’ll defer comment until I read your arguments.
It is curious to me how the apostles, being commanded by Christ to baptize all nations, would turn around and consistently baptize in Jesus’ name if all Jesus meant was to reference God’s authority. If that is the case, then any formula will do. Any reference to Jesus’ name in the book of Acts is merely an invocation of Christ’s authority. There is no actual saving name and baptism in Jesus’ name is merely a preference. Acts 4:12 would read, in part, “For there is none other authority under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.” I am not saying you believe that because that would commit you to textual suicide. However, at this stage of our discussion, I do not know how you can avoid taking such an untenable position.
Finally, an HTML tag is what allows you to emphasize text such as I have done in this reply.
Kind regards,
Scalia
LikeLike
April 30, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Scalia,
As for YHWH, I made the statement I did in response to your claim that “Jesus is… the name of the Godhead.” I had forgotten that you had written previously acknowledging that YHWH is the name of God. But even now as I re-read what you wrote, it isn’t clear to me that you believe YHWH is God’s name. It seems to me you might be saying YHWH was God’s name, but now it is Jesus. Not sure.
No, I’m not claiming that most theologians think YHWH is not God’s proper name. I don’t know what they would say about that. I’ve never heard anyone address the question. I am arguing that YHWH is not God’s name; that God has no name. I find it absurd to think that God named Himself in eternity. The names God goes by all serve to reveal something about Himself to mankind. They are just descriptors. If there was no mankind to reveal Himself to, there was no reason to associate Himself with these descriptors. Furthermore, YHWH is a Hebrew word. Surely God’s eternal name is not Hebrew! Yes, God intended to reveal Himself as such to the Jews from eternity, but that is not at all the same as saying YHWH is God’s name, and that He had this name from eternity. If you don’t find my assessment convincing, that is fine with me. This is not a hill to die on.
I was not assuming disagreement means ignorance. But neither was I assuming you knew anything about Hebrew name theology either. After all, apart from you discussing it with me, how could I have known otherwise? Given the fact that most people don’t, I’m safer to assume people don’t than that they do. And what if they don’t? That doesn’t degrade their intelligence. It means they are like all of us: they’ve got more to learn. So if you already know some point that I am making, feel free to tell me, but please don’t interpret my mentioning it as patronizing.
I didn’t say the Bible says God’s name is Father. I explicitly denied this. I said Father is “used” as a proper name. This should be uncontroversial, if it weren’t for our insistence on the “name vs. titles” approach to interpreting Mt 28:19. After all, Jesus consistently spoke to the Father, and never once called Him YHWH. He called Him Father. His followers did the same thing. They used “Father” as a proper name, even if technically speaking it is not.
They baptized in Jesus’ name because Jesus had just said that all authority in heaven was His. As for Acts 4:12, I don’t understand why you would think this is a counter-example to my point. You just quoted me as saying “name” refers to someone’s “authority” or “person.” Clearly in Acts 4:12 it is focusing on Christ’s person when it uses “name.” And I recognize that every time nomos appears it does not necessarily signify the person or their authority, but can refer to a proper name itself. The context determines this.
Jason
LikeLike
May 1, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I wrote on March 17th, “And if it [Jesus] is the revealed name of God, then the name of Jesus is as much the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as Yahweh was the name of the Godhead in the Old Testament.” Since I make it clear Jesus is the name of the Godhead, that the name Yahweh, is in the name of Jesus, that the name of Jesus represents the fullness of God’s progressive revelation to mankind, there should be no confusion that I assert Yahweh is God’s OT name.
While I appreciate your candor, it is difficult for me to understand why you would comment about such an important topic without informing yourself with the wealth of scholarly literature available about God’s name. However, if you’ve never heard anyone address that question, then how do you reconcile that with what you said previously?
Here you write most theologians consider YHWH the name of God and then you say you don’t know what they would say about that (what God’s proper name is). Perhaps you make a distinction between name and proper name but you wrote THE NAME.
So then, you disagree with “most theologians” without sufficient argumentation. As aforesaid, the article you linked took me to Brother Arnold’s article about baptism. The only article I found written by you wherein you addressed the subject is a very short work of your opinions. I think the theologians you refer to have shown overwhelming evidence in their favor. Unless you can engage their arguments and show why they are mistaken, you do nothing more than reveal your bias.
Yes, you’ve made that clear; but unless you can show why you think it is absurd with sound arguments, you’re speaking to the wind.
Yes, but you have not shown that is the only purpose for every name.
There is no Scriptural passage informing us that names are “just descriptors.” Practically all, if not all, ancient names/titles were descriptors; but many of these names served the additional purpose of personal identity (a proper name).
Your second sentence is a faulty assumption. The angelic host existed prior to the Universe’s actualization. How did the angels address God after material creation? Isaiah tells us:
Isaiah 6
3. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
Here the seraphims, before God’s throne, vocalize the name of Yahweh as part of their worship. Now, did they simply call Him God or some other title until God decided to reveal the name of Yahweh to Abraham? Did God say to the host, “Now that my chosen people are calling me by the name of Yahweh, I want you to incorporate that name into your worship”? What name, if any, they used prior material creation is speculative; but raising these questions is sufficient to demonstrate a faulty assumption on your part.
Yes, Yahweh is a Hebrew word. We all know that. Your second sentence is a bald assertion. How do you know that? You offer no scripture, only your bias. That just doesn’t cut it. But even granting such a superficial point, what logical force does it have? We don’t call Jesus Yeshua so does that mean His name isn’t really Jesus? “Jesus” is merely the English equivalent of Christ’s personal name. Since there is a tongue of men and of angels (I Cor. 13:1) the name Yahweh may have a “heavenly” equivalent which God then made intelligible to His Hebrew servants. Hence, your “God’s eternal name is not Hebrew” turns out to be a straw man.
Jason, a simple “that was perhaps a poor choice of words; I regret the confusion” would suffice. You said, “You also need to understand what many call ‘Hebrew name theology.’” Whether you think it is “safer” to assume ignorance, it is impolite to assume anybody is ignorant of a topic. The flow of the argument will reveal that. You say you were not assuming disagreement means ignorance, then three sentences later you say that is precisely what you did in my case – assume my ignorance of name theology. Telling me I “need to understand” makes an unwarranted assumption of ignorance. We disagree, and to support your reasoning, you instruct me to inform myself of name theology. You deny you were patronizing and I accept your denial; that, however, does not change what you said. You sound patronizing whether or not you intend to.
What you explicitly denied is that FSH are proper names. But that denial comes from your earlier statements that (a) Yahweh is not a proper name; and (b) Jesus is a descriptor “of sorts.” Building upon that, you argue that while Father is not a proper name, it is definitely used as a proper name. To what effect? The topic is the name in Mt. 28:19 under the general heading of baptism. You can argue the term “Father” is a de facto proper name for God when you attack the traditional OP interpretation of that text, or you can argue it IS God’s proper name (or one of them). The first option simply does not follow. Title usage does not imply its use as a proper name (as my mom and dad counterpoint demonstrates). Since the Bible nowhere calls “Father” God’s name, the fact it is often used to address God does not mean it is used as a proper name. Catholics call their priests Father and Pentecostals call their pastors Pastor but those usages do not imply a de facto proper name. Your argument appears to be read into the text.
What I said was in reply to your post of March 29th wherein you argue the above to the intermediate conclusion that name isn’t a proper name and such an interpretation misunderstands “the ancient-near-east concept of name.” My reply to that demonstrates otherwise. Your final conclusion that name does not mean proper name in Mt. 28:19 is thus without warrant.
Christ saying that all authority in heaven was His does not, in itself, amount to a command to baptize all converts in His name. Further, when you argue the ancients understood ‘name’ to refer to authority or person and not a proper name, you cannot then turn around and argue Jesus prescribed a formula in His proper name. For if citing His authority requires citing His proper name, then Mt. 28:19 is an explicit endorsement of Jesus name baptism. If citing His authority alone is all that is necessary, then ANY formula will suffice so long as the proper authority is cited. The post I replied to excluded the understanding that Christ was referring to a proper name and that’s why I cited Acts 4:12. If “name” refers only to the person of Christ, then “Jesus” is not a saving name, the person of Christ is what saves; His name is merely a convenient tag of reference. Every reference to Jesus name baptism can be reinterpreted to mean all converts were baptized under the authority of Christ, but not necessarily in His proper name. Your argument makes Jesus name baptism a preference, not a prescription.
I have already presented a preliminary argument why THE NAME in Mt. 28:19 refers to Jesus’ name. Since you acknowledge context determines a proper name reference, the context of that passage demonstrates the name is Jesus.
Kind regards,
Scalia
LikeLike
May 3, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I’d like to apologize for my “we all know that” remark. That appears snide and I regret writing it.
I’d also like to expand upon a few points. If Christ meant proper name in Mt. 28:19, then the OP observation that “name isn’t a title” is correct. As you acknowledge, FSH are not proper names, so the distinction remains. As I observed elsewhere, the best your counter argument accomplishes is the possibility of an alternate interpretation; it doesn’t demonstrate the stance you criticize is incorrect.
Since you acknowledge the word “name” can be taken at least three ways (person, authority, and proper), it is difficult to see why you think the traditional OP interpretation is wrong. You agree that name (title) is not proper name so when OP say “Father is not a name” that is exactly what they mean – the descriptive name “Father” is not a proper name. To weaken that assertion, you have argued that God does not have a name, the ancients would not have understood Him (Christ) to be referring to a proper name, and the singular use of name applied to names and/or titles is in accord with the rules of grammar.
I think the evidence is overwhelming God certainly does have a name and nothing you’ve argued thus far shows otherwise.
It appears you’ve backed away from insisting the ancients would not have understood “name” to refer to a proper name. You acknowledge the context determines how they would have understood that term. Given that, the questioned OP position is not weakened at all. In fact, OP aren’t the only ones who have observed this. Presbyterian theologian, James Oliver Buswell, Jr., wrote, “The ‘name,’ not ‘names’ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in which we are to be baptized, is to be understood as Jahweh, the name of the Triune God.” So, to Buswell and other theologians who agree, there IS a proper name Jesus is referring to. He thinks it is Jahweh, not the descriptive names (titles) FSH.
You correctly argue that FSH are names, though not proper names; but how shall we look at Mt. 28:19 in light of what you believe as an Apostolic? Many Trinitarian scholars insist THE NAME Christ refers to is FSH and that the singular use of “name” connotes the unity of the Godhead. Curiously, some of them cite passages (e.g. Exodus 23:13) to justify the use of the singular for the plural. But these passages do not teach the various gods share the same name or that they are united in some manner. The phrase, “make no mention of the name of other gods” means each god has a particular name, not that they have some sort of unified name. Notice Psalm 16:4, “Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.” And Zech. 13:2, “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land…” Consequently, baptizing in the name of the FSH entails vocalizing FSH as the name, though not proper name, of God, or it only refers to authority without invoking any name. You reject FSH baptism, so your counter argument that Father is used as a proper name is difficult to understand. And if you reject FSH baptism, then it seems you must reject the assertion that the name Christ referred to is a non-proper name. That means, of course, He must have been referring to a proper name.
Your grammar argument asserts that baptism is in the authority of the FSH and does not entail the invocation of a proper name, or that baptism is in the person of the FSH and does not entail proper name invocation. If the former, then any formula which refers to God is acceptable. I think you disavow a “pick-um” formula, so we can shelve that for now. If baptism into the person of the FSH does not entail vocalizing His proper name, then, as with the former option, any formula will do. If, however, invoking the person entails invoking His name, then Mt. 28:19’s use of “name” is exactly how OP have interpreted this passage for decades: Jesus is referring to a proper name, not titles.
The vast majority of what I’ve read from OP literature does not analyze Mt. 28:19 in a vacuum. That verse is consistently interpreted in its immediate and Biblical context. The Trinitarian claim that FSH is the non-proper name Christ is referring to is vitiated by the following facts:
a) God has a name.
b) God’s name is in Jesus.
c) Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation to man.
d) Repentance and remission of sins is preached in Jesus’ name.
e) Jesus is the only saving name.
f) Jesus’ name is above every name.
g) The whole family in heaven and earth is named after Jesus.
h) The immediate context of Mt. 28:19 focuses on Jesus.
i) The apostles consistently baptized in Jesus’ name.
The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the interpretation that Jesus referred to a proper name and not the titles of FSH. Hence, when OP insist that when Christ said name not names and that “name” is a proper name, they are correct. When they insist FSH are not “names” (meaning proper names), they are correct. When they insist Christ commanded a name to be invoked at baptism, they are correct. And when they insist that if Father is the name of one person, Son is the name of another person, and Holy Ghost is the name of the third person, then they are correct in noting that name is singular and precludes using the titles, unless mere authority is intended. Mere authority is not what Christ intended, so an actual name should be used. Your counter argument that “name” can be applied to multiple persons in certain contexts does not fit here. Neither the immediate nor general context justifies that interpretation. Consequently, the traditional OP position is correct.
Best wishes,
Scalia
LikeLike
September 29, 2010 at 9:06 am
I didn’t read all the posts about this but I just wanted to share one thought.
Is baptism in Jesus Name’ based on what the preacher speaks out of his own mouth when he dunks you, or does it have to do with Who you are believing in when you are dunked ?
If you think clearly about this, I think the enemy has done a number in causing division in the church over an insignificant religious issue. Arguing about a baptismal formula is akin to legalism.
Be on guard Christians !!
Naz
LikeLike
September 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Matthew 4
1. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 5
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Since you didn’t read all of the posts, I gently recommend you do so.
You say this is an “insignificant religious issue.” What is your support for that statement? We’re discussing the Bible, so are you saying there are some parts of God’s word that are “insignificant”?
We do not believe the subject of baptism is insignificant, and we most definitely believe the formula for baptism is important. It is incumbent upon you to prove they aren’t.
In answer to your question, the Bible teaches Jesus’ name baptism. Baptism is an essential component of the new birth. We are thus obligated, as believers, to be obedient to God’s word. The reason there is dialog along this line is there are those who dispute that; and asking questions as Jason has along these lines is a commendable effort to weed out false teaching. Your tactic doesn’t at all help in that regard. It is the substantive equivalent of telling somebody to shut up.
LikeLike
September 29, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Naz,
My answer is that it relates to both.
I agree with you in principle that the church should not divide over insignificant theological issues, but in our estimation, this is not a theologically insignificant issue. And would you call those who argue against Jesus’ name baptism, and for F,S,HS baptism divisive as well? If disagreeing with someone else’s interpretation of Scripture is divisive, then all of us are divisive because all of us, in virtue of believing the Bible to mean X, necessarily disagree with all -X interpretations of the Bible.
As for saying that arguing over the proper baptismal formula is akin to legalism, how so? The debate is one over the meaning of Scripture, and has nothing to do with legalism.
Jason
LikeLike
October 1, 2010 at 12:53 pm
I think I need to clarify my statements here and answer comments.
To Scalia and Jason: First of all, I don’t believe baptism is insignificant and I do believe in baptism. Also, I am not arguing against the Word of God here, rather against the application and understanding of the doctrine of water baptism by the United Pentecostal Church. I am suggesting here that the Jesus’ Name baptism that the UPC stands so strongly for, is really only different in essence to the F,S,HS baptism in nothing more than what is said by the preacher as the baptismal candidate is dunked in water. Both the trinitarian and oneness believer both believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, both are dunked in a tub of water, the only difference is what the preacher pronounces over them.
I don’t see any scriptures that say we have to say certain words when we baptize somebody or they are not really baptized. There are scriptures that say we must believe in our heart, confess with our mouth but not one single scripture about the dynamic between the person performing the baptism and baptismal candidate, not one. Certainly, if being baptized in Jesus Name’ relied on and necessitated that the preacher say “in Jesus Name'” then the scriptures would be clear on this.
The scriptures are clear that you must also believe and be baptized. In the case of Simon the sorcerer his heart and intentions were not right before God. Lacking these things will in fact make your baptism of no effect.
As for the trinity, I don’t believe the doctrine of the trinity is correct theologically, however, I realized not too long ago that one of the reasons that trinitarians believe in the trinity is to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ. I think that is at the very core of our faith, so how can I negate or dismiss them just because their understanding of the Godhead is not 100% correct ! Jason would probably be the first to agree that the topic of the Godhead is not a simple concept to understand perfectly. (By the way Jason, I appreciate all that material on the Godhead, it really helped me to understand it better myself.)
So that said, this is why they baptize in the titles, are they still Christians then? Are we going to judge them based on their theological understanding? Do I love my child less because she says I want to marry daddy one day? Her understanding as a child is limited obviously, but do I hold that against her? Is the intent of these people baptizing in titles and believing in the trinity evil? We need to be careful we don’t reduce our faith into such a small box as to make the means of grace God has provided into just another set of rules and regulations akin to the OT law.
Scalia, I did not intend this to tell people to “shut up”, but I did want to generate some critical thinking. I can detect some hostility in your comments that I don’t get from Jason’s comments. If I’m wrong, forgive me, but if this discussion is causing you to get angry then you have proved my point. Don’t give the enemy that advantage in your life.
Jason, I agree we need to carefully study scripture to determine the right meaning and to gain a proper understanding. What I am saying is that if we find ourselves debating over methods and forms instead of good vs. evil, we are treading a very close line to legalism.
So in summary, while I do not agree that the baptismal formula is a significant theological issue, I do believe that baptism itself is a significant theological issue. I do not see any scripture where the baptismal formula is a point of debate or even concern amongst Christians. I don’t even see reference to it being deemed a “formula”. While I think there can be healthy debates that can bring better understanding, I believe the baptismal formula debate has done nothing but cause division and strife in the body of Christ.
I do believe in baptism in Jesus’ Name, and this is what I think it is. If a person repents of his sin and asks God to forgive him through the shed blood of Jesus Christ and goes down in the waters of baptism believing on and trusting in Jesus for his salvation – that person has been baptized in Jesus’ Name. There needs not anything more be said.
Naz
LikeLike
October 1, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Naz writes,
If you detect any “hostility” in my comments, your detector needs a rebuild. I simply asked you to substantiate your assertions because every one of them in your previous post was unsupported by argument. When you insist people should listen to you without telling them why, you ARE telling them to “shut up,” even if you don’t realize it.
The whole point of Jason’s blog is to encourage rational debate. You did the opposite. You accused us of arguing an “insignificant” issue (without reading all the posts!) and stated it is akin (related, allied by nature, comparable, parallel) to legalism. You are thus attacking us for discussing a biblical issue. The fact you attack other Christians without explanation appears to “prove” more about your demeanor than mine.
And your scriptural support for this statement? Obedience is a prerequisite for salvation. Christ commanded His disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the FSH. They obeyed that command by baptizing their converts in Jesus’ name. This is proved biblically and historically. You disagree, but that is the nature of debate. You later argue that the record is silent, but again, the above discussion and others appears to demonstrate otherwise.
The above discussion fleshes that out. Moreover, “in the name of” is a common biblical phrase that often, and in the case of baptism, entails personal name invocation.
But that is precisely part of what this thread is all about.
Just who is negating or dismissing trinitarians because of that? The scriptural position is that the One who has begun a good work in you will “perform” it unto the coming of the Lord. When the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.
If the oneness of God is true, then the Spirit of truth will guide sincere trinitarians to it (He certainly did that for me). Trinitarians who fight against that cannot be sincere, unless they, like Saul, do so ignorantly. However, that should never stop us from loudly proclaiming the biblical truth of one God in the Person of Jesus Christ. It has been my experience over many years that many trinitarians are fine with oneness folks so long as they keep their mouths shut. When we preach oneness, they close the doors. If silence is the price for fellowship, the price is too high. And if a “Christian” who is supposedly filled with and submissive to the Spirit of God can so ardently resist and fight against “the greatest of all commandments,” then the question of their sincerely is legitimately raised.
Well, that’s not really the topic of this post. A Christian is somebody who has obeyed the Gospel (Christ’s death, burial and resurrection – repentance, water baptism in Jesus’ name, and receiving the Holy Ghost). I never discount the sincerity of somebody who professes faith in Christ until I see their lives. If they, like Apollos and the Ephesian disciples who knew only the baptism of John, are receptive to having the way of truth explained to them more perfectly, I welcome them with open arms. If not, red flags go up.
Your post states clearly what you, Naz, believe with respect to the baptismal formula. We respectfully disagree with you that the scriptures are silent on this issue. There is no doubt in my mind this can be proved. However, if your concern is about “division and strife,” then I think you’ll agree that it is the false doctrine of the Trinity, and false doctrine with respect to salvation, that have caused far more “division and strife” than a call for a return to the biblical truths of the oneness of God and the new birth.
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Naz,
I would only respond that there are two issues when it comes to the proper baptismal formula: (1) What is it?; (2) What is the significance of it?
As to the 1st question, I think the Scripture is quite clear that what Jesus intended, and what the apostles did, is to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.
As to the 2nd question, will someone be lost if the person baptizing them repeats Jesus’ words verbatim rather than using the “Jesus’ name” formula? I tend to think not, but I cannot say. What I can say is that Scripture teaches baptism is to be performed in the name of Jesus Christ, and we should submit to that whether we believe there are eternal consequences involved or not. It wouldn’t make any sense for someone (not saying you) to argue that while the Bible teaches X, we do not need to do X since not doing X will not cause us to go to hell. If the Bible teaches that baptism is to be administered in the name of Jesus Christ, then that is how we ought to do it. See http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/baptism.htm for more on this.
Jason
LikeLike
October 14, 2010 at 8:04 am
Jason, thanks for your response.
1) You said
“will someone be lost if the person baptizing them repeats Jesus’ words verbatim rather than using the “Jesus’ name” formula? I tend to think not, but I cannot say”
It seems that what you are saying here is that you are not sure if saying the literal words “in Jesus’ Name” during a baptism makes any difference to the baptism.
What do you believe Jesus’ Name baptism is ?
What do you believe is the essential difference between Jesus’ Name baptism and F,S,HS baptism ?
If all you can point to is the vocal invocation then I must refer you back to your quote where you said that you are not sure whether name invocation makes any difference.
May I suggest that the reason you don’t know whether it makes any difference is because it really does not make any difference at all but because you have been taught a certain way you are battling with your own common sense which is telling you it doesn’t make a difference.
What about if nothing is said by the person performing the baptism ?
I read you link from your previous response and if that is not enough proof for somebody to see what this formula debate is doing to people I don’t know what is. This poor soul is in torment and is being condemned by his peers just because of the way he was baptized. It sickens my stomach to see the spiritual pain that is being inflicted on this young man. What happened to the greatest commandment about loving God and loving each other ? I think trying to convince people to a strict adherence to the Jesus’ Name formula is too high a price to pay if souls are going to be damaged and hurt. The poor guy doesn’t even understand what he did wrong and yet he is being condemned like a murderer !! He obviously feels no conviction or he would re-baptize. All he is feeling is peer-pressure. If someone were to tell him that he needs to stop stealing or lying I think his response would be totally different.
You must ask yourself what is more important ? I am not suggesting here we diverge from biblical truth and start preaching false gospels. What I am suggesting is that we start to exercise some grace and allow some liberty in some areas that are not good/evil issues. No one is denying the Name of Jesus here. Jesus says that when we act with compassion and love towards another we are in fact doing it to Him.
I know that you are seeking to be scriptural in everything you do and I commend that. I know that you believe we should acknowledge the Name of Jesus in baptism – and I fully understand and agree wholeheartedly on that. I don’t have any problem with Jesus Name being uttered during a baptism.
I think where we disagree is the specific application of what that means in practice. Unless I have misunderstood, it appears the vocal name invocation of “in Jesus Name” is the only element that is really being argued here. In that case, I do not believe we need to make this an issue of division with people that are baptized in the titles. In the end, what matters is Who the person is being baptized into and that is a spiritual transaction of faith between the believer and God.
By insisting on any particular vocal invocation (Jesus Name or F,S,HS) to deem the baptism valid, I would argue is a created construct of our own and is not a scriptural basis to make such a judgment.
If I can quote Philip from Acts,
“If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then you may be baptized.”(paraphrase)
God Bless.
Naz
LikeLike
October 14, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Naz writes,
You asked this question of Jason, and he can certainly speak for himself. That said, all you’ve told us thus far is you believe baptism is a “significant theological issue,” and that you “don’t have any problem with Jesus [sic] Name being uttered at baptism.” So, if you don’t mind, please explain how significant baptism is. If you do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation, then it follows you don’t believe the formula is necessary. Why would a baptismal formula be necessary when baptism isn’t? I also assume by Jesus’ name being “uttered,” you have no objection to Jesus’ name baptism as a formula, correct?
Again, Jason can speak for himself, but if you read the article he linked, then you know his position isn’t mere “vocal invocation.” In fact, if you’re familiar with Oneness Pentecostalism, you know very well our position is nowhere close to mere vocal invocation.
“Common sense” arguments don’t stop at baptismal formulas. I’ll ask you similar questions:
1) Does it make sense that a person who isn’t baptized (regardless of formula) is lost?
2) Does it matter how one is baptized so long as a person is baptized (pouring, sprinkling, immersion)?
3) Does it make “common sense” that a person who is an upstanding, moral Muslim, raised in Islam and dies in an automobile accident at 15, will burn in a fiery lake forever?
4) Don’t you think calling two bears to maul children a wee bit much for their immature taunting?
5) Does your “common sense” accept the command to run swords through screaming babies (when Israel conquered Canaan)??
I could go on and on. If you believe in the exclusivity of the Gospel, you’re square in the camp of the “harsh” and “insensitive” to those Christians who believe God is more “inclusive” than fundamentalists who believe God will BBQ 5 billion people (plus most, if not all, Catholics) merely because they’re not Christians.
Proverbs 14
12. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
We either believe and teach the Bible or we don’t. If you disagree with what we teach, then either show us why the Bible is to be disregarded or show us BIBLICALLY why our position is mistaken. An appeal to “common sense” has no rational force in this context because, for Bible believers, it makes perfect “common sense” to believe God’s words.
All Jason did was gently advise the questioner that complying with the plain, straightforward teaching of Scripture is something everybody who claims to love God should want to do.
With respect to “liberty,” we are not allowed to grant liberty where that liberty conflicts with Scripture. Again, the issue is what the Bible teaches, not what “liberty” we feel we can work into the Bible to make it more palatable to somebody who doesn’t want to obey it.
Yes, Naz, you have misunderstood. We believe baptism is an essential component of salvation, and that Christ taught His church to baptize all converts in His name.
You keep repeating this, but, Naz, it is having no effect. You are probably completely ignorant of what we teach. That is no crime in itself; but if that is the case, you should FIRST ask for relevant material on why we believe the formula is necessary. You can then rebut what you think are the scriptural flaws in our argument. On the other hand, if you know what we believe, then you are deliberately mischaracterizing it.
If you would like a good, basic presentation of why we baptize in Jesus’ name, you can read in Bro. David Bernard’s book, The New Birth, the relevant portions dealing with the baptismal formula.
LikeLike
October 14, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Naz,
While I believe there is a formula we are suppose to invoke over the baptizee, and while I believe the intended formula is “in the name of Jesus” as opposed to “Father, Son, Holy Spirit,” I don’t believe the formula is a magical incantation that magically washes away sins. Human words do not have that power. What makes baptism effective is the faith of the baptizee in the work that God is doing through the baptism.
As for the difference, I don’t think that one formula results in salvation while the other results in damnation as you suppose. That doesn’t mean I don’t see a difference between them. I see one as being the proper formula, and the other one as not. I also see a theological difference between the two. The reason we are to be baptized in Jesus’ name is because of the purpose of baptism: it is to identify us with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. That’s why we are baptized into his name; i.e. into his person.
Will someone go to hell because they were baptized “in the titles?” No, I don’t think so. But I would still encourage that person to be baptized in Jesus’ name because that is what I believe Jesus meant in Mt 28:19, and that was the only way the early church baptized, and there is theological significance to the formula. While I do not have the authority to judge anyone’s salvation, I do have the responsibility to teach what the Bible teaches on the proper mode of baptism. Just because someone may not be lost if they were baptized with the wrong formula is no excuse not to teach people the correct mode of baptism, and to baptize that way rather than using the formula of Mt 28:19.
As for your quote of Philip, that’s probably not part of the original text. 😉 I know. I liked it too!
Jason
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 6:44 am
Jason, thanks for the kind response. I think we are in agreement in principle here.
I would agree that if anything is uttered during a baptism, it would be more theologically accurate to use “Jesus Name”. You made a good point though, that this is a theological issue and not a salvation issue.
Although I never assumed you believed F,S,HS baptism resulted in damnation, I know that there are many Oneness Pentecostals that do believe this. And really, that is what I wanted to address here.
While I would agree that we should teach our identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ through baptism, I would not be too concerned about the correct theological utterance at the moment of baptism as I would the theological understanding of the candidate about baptism.
Thank again, God Bless
Naz
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 11:10 am
Naz,
I think we are largely in agreement. While I am not as concerned about the formula as I am about the baptizee’s faith in Jesus, I am still concerned about the formula since it is a Biblical teaching, and since it communicates a very important theological truth.
I would not hesitate to tell someone who is baptized in the name of the F,S,HS that they were not baptized the proper way (and even encourage them to be rebaptized), but I would not say that if they fail to be rebaptized in Jesus’ name they are lost. While I do not believe the formula itself causes anything spiritual to happen in the tank, I am an advocate of doing things the Biblical way.
Additionally, I recognize that I could be wrong. Perhaps the formula is determinate for salvation, despite my inability to see how that could be so. After all, I do believe Scripture teaches that baptism is essential for salvation, and since the formula is part of baptism, perhaps that is essential as well. So I would advise such a person to play it safe and be baptized in Jesus’ name. You can’t go wrong doing things the Biblical way. We can debate whether or not someone is saved if they obeyed Jesus’ literal words rather than his intended meaning, but the bottom line is that the Bible teaches that we are to be baptized in Jesus’ name. If it’s Biblical, then do it. I see no sensible reason for someone to refuse to be baptized the Biblical way just because they think it probably doesn’t matter for their salvation. It probably doesn’t, but what if it does? Eternity is too long to take the chance. If nothing else, we should obey the Word of God for the sake of obeying the Word of God.
Jason
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Whew, Jason! Post 22 saved me a LOT of typing! 😉
I’ll only add that this haggle of what is and what isn’t essential has perplexed me for a very long time. As I mentioned in Post 13, what portion of Scripture isn’t essential? If Christ taught that all nations should brush their hair before they brush their teeth, without adding, “You’ll burn in Hell if you don’t,” would we have blog entries questioning the “essentiality” of brushing one’s hair before teeth? Probably so, I guess.
Although my position is slightly different from yours, I think you’re correct to state that if Scripture teaches X, we should teach X. We are not authorized to say anybody can avoid X. If we are not authorized to condemn people to Hell, neither are we authorized to promote them to Heaven. God alone has the prerogative to assign a person’s eternal destiny. From my perspective, it is supreme chutzpah for a Bible believer to argue a biblical teaching is nonessential.
All the best.
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Scalia,
I think there are two senses of “essential.” Anything taught in Scripture is essential in the sense that we need to comply. The difference comes in the consequences for failure to comply. If Scripture told me I need to brush my hair before brushing my teeth, but I failed to do so, I would be doing wrong, but that failure to obey would not prevent me from experiencing future salvation.
Other commands in Scripture, however, are essential in the sense that if we don’t do X, we cannot be saved. A clear example is faith in Jesus. One cannot fail to put their trust in Jesus and still be saved.
So the question is whether the baptismal formula is essential in the first or second sense. I would argue that it is essential in the first sense only. While I don’t think one’s eternal fate hangs on the formula that was uttered over them in the water, the formula is still essential in the sense that we are commanded to use it. That’s why I oppose any suggestation that it doesn’t really matter. It’s in the Word, so it matters. I think we’re on the same page here.
Jason
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Jason, I, too, think we’re on the same page; and I agree there are two “senses” of “essential.” However, I would like you to clarify this statement,
I would readily agree that a person who disregards a biblical command could be forgiven at a later date (while still physically alive, of course). However, how can a believer deliberately disregard a biblical command and not jeopardize h/er relationship with God? I know Moses disobeyed God’s command to speak to the rock, and he was forgiven. Similarly, a person may deliberately disobey the command to be baptized in Jesus’ name and subsequently repent; but if that person refuses to obey that command for the rest of h/er life on the basis that “it doesn’t matter,” how does that not relate to that person’s standing before God? I realize you qualify your statement by saying you wouldn’t take the chance, so perhaps no clarification is needed. I just fear many Apostolics are becoming apathetic with respect to baptism; and since it doesn’t matter (to them), they can safely avoid preaching it. You’re definitely not that way, but Naz certainly is.
To me, I wouldn’t even hint it is somehow acceptable to disobey a divine command. I would simply say, “Listen, if God says it, you’d better do it. If He thinks it’s important enough to command it, we’d better pay attention; and I’m not going to get into a verbal ping-pong match over how essential that command is.”
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Jason and Scalia, I will try to be brief.
With all that was said, I think what you are saying is that, just do it the way the scripture says even
though we don’t really know for sure (100%) if it has eternal consequences. In other words, play it
safe.
Do you really believe that if something was that important and had eternal consequences, we would not
know about it ? This whole dialogue proves there is a measure of uncertainty in terms of the baptismal
formula and its eternal consequences for both of you.
Am I going to one day stand before God and He’s going to tell me that I should have brushed my teeth
twice a day instead of only once – and then boot me out !!
In these types of discussions should we not be looking to see if there is a higher godly imperative we need to follow that may force us break the letter of the law? Didn’t Jesus break the sabbath so He could heal?
In the same way, can we not break the letter of Jesus Name baptism in order to avoid division with
people who obviously believe in Jesus Christ and have been baptized?
According to Scalia, these people are damned to hell unless they repent of their false-baptism ! How far do you go on the exact rendering of all these biblical mandates? Who judges whether we are doing everything just right? Is it the UPCI ? Is it Scalia?
Scalia, in your zeal to obey divine commands did you consider that you may be breaking other higher
divine commands in the process? Do you think it is OK to alienate and condemn other believers in order
to make sure the baptismal formula is obeyed to the letter? Is that your mandate as a child of God?
Show me in the scriptures that this is our highest ideal. We are to live by the Spirit and God is a
Spirit and God is love. What do you think that tells you about our priorities and mandates as
believers? You may be surprised to find out one day on how little God cares about formulas compared with how much He cares about people.
If you follow this to its logical conclusion, you will eventually carry out your Christian walk in a
legalistic condemning fashion and will miss the intent or spirit of what God is trying to do in your
life. We will always be pointing our fingers at those that aren’t as theological as we are and that don’t understand the correct way like we do . We become modern-day Pharisees – that is the end result.
Then we wonder why nobody wants to be part of our church – I guess they just don’t love God……is
what we say.
I came from a church that strained at gnats and swallowed camels so I know what I am talking about.
Naz
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Naz writes,
No, that is not at all what I am saying. Again, I’m not speaking for Jason.
Yes, we would surely know about it. I am convinced the Bible teaches the essentiality of Jesus’ name baptism.
It proves nothing of the kind. Perhaps that is the case with Jason, but not with me.
I am merely approaching the “essential/nonessential” argument from another angle. It makes no sense to argue there are segments of God’s word that are not essential, unless you disavow the authority of Scripture.
The distinction I referred to in Post 25 is how I described it in that same post. I am as convinced of the necessity of Jesus’ name baptism as I am of the necessity of faith in Christ. I have not once in this thread stated I believe people who are not scripturally born again are saved. Again, I am simply arguing that even though a passage may not explicitly employ Heaven/Hell language, it is nonetheless essential. In other words, for Bible believers, no biblical command is nonessential.
Funny. You keep asking questions, but you’ve ignored practically every question I’ve asked you. You came here to accuse us of legalism (with unsupported arguments), and have steadfastly refused to engage me in dialog. That is, of course, your prerogative, but please dispense with your questions to me if you’re not going to answer mine.
That said, I’ll answer you anyway. If God commands you to brush your teeth and you refuse, then there is something wrong with your spirit, Naz. If you love Him, you’ll do whatever he tells you to do. Your question (comment) tells me you consider your sense of righteousness superior to God’s. If you consider His commands unworthy of your attention, then you’re at liberty to ignore them. He is somehow unjust for expecting you to comply with His will — unless, of course, you judge His “suggestion” worthy of your time. He is thus not your King; He is your Santa Claus.
No, He did not. He broke an oral tradition that had no bearing on Sabbath Day commandments.
You really need to pay attention to your own argument if you expect others to understand you. You began your latest post by accusing me of uncertainty with respect to the essentiality of the baptismal formula, and now you accuse me of throwing every dissenter into Hell. Which is it?
I used to be a trinitarian. I don’t know your theological history, but I know something about “the other side.” I wasn’t raised in Pentecost, and I probably have far more compassion for trinitarians than you fancy yourself to have. As I stated above (did you read it?), the Spirit of God will guide hungry souls into all truth. If God decrees water baptism in His name, He will guide a believer to that truth (Acts 19). If that believer loves God (shouldn’t he?), he will readily do what God tells him to do. I really don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to understand that.
Why don’t you answer that one, Naz? What makes you think you’re right and we are wrong? Who are you to tell me I’m doing anything wrong? If you can legitimately compare my behavior with what you believe God’s word teaches and find it wanting, then you shouldn’t find fault when others do the same thing. God decrees baptism in His name and that’s what we preach. Those that preach otherwise are preaching false doctrine. If you disagree with that, then by all means give us your scriptural presentation; but please dispense with this self-refuting judgment stuff. You’re judging me in the very act of condemning my judgment of others. We have every right to judge true and false doctrine.
As soon as you come up with a scriptural argument, that statement might be persuasive. I am still waiting.
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Scalia,
Make no mistake about it, I am not saying it is ever ok to disobey a command of the Lord. I just think the consequences can vary depending on the command. Some have eternal consequences, while other’s don’t. But clearly, all disobedience interferes with one’s relationship with God.
And I think you are right about the apathy some OPs are exhibiting in regards to this issue. I think this is largely an over-reaction to their previous view—that the formula is salvific in nature. People falsely think that if something is not salvific, it is not important.
How can people deliberately disobey the command to be baptized in Jesus’ name? Well, the majority of people aren’t even aware of the baptismal formula issue. Of those who are, many go with their tradition and opt for the Matthean formula. Or they reason that we should go with Jesus’ words vs. the apostles. Or they reason that God surely can’t be upset at us for repeating his exact words. In all these cases, they would not interpret their failure to be rebaptized as disobedience because they are not convinced that the Matthean formula is invalid.
Jason
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Naz,
I have no good reason to think someone will not be saved if they obeyed Jesus’ words literally. I just refuse to say that it cannot possibly have a bearing on one’s salvation since it is part of baptism, which I understand Scripture to teach is part of salvation. Given the formula’s intrinsic connection to something that is identified as salvific, it would be foolish of me to say with absolute confidence that the formula cannot possibly have anything to do with salvation.
While I think the person’s faith alone is enough to make baptism efficacious, and the other elements (water, formula) are symbolic in nature, I could be wrong about this since Scripture does not parcel baptism up into various components of faith, formula, and water—and say faith is the only component that plays a part in salvation. Given my inability to know for sure, coupled with my conviction that the Jesus name formula is the only way God intended for us to be baptized, I teach people to be baptized that way—even those who were previously baptized using the Matthean formula.
Jason
LikeLike
October 15, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Jason wrote,
Right. I don’t think you’re making that claim.
I am trying to think of a scriptural precedent for this and I’m coming up empty. From eating forbidden fruit to eating with doubt, the conscious, deliberate disregard of a divine command is sinful; and the price one pays for sin is death. Even the heretofore cited disobedience of Moses appears to be an act of rashness over deliberation. If you can think of an example, I’d like to hear it.
I agree most people are not consciously disobeying a baptismal command. However, I have witnessed and heard of people who have recognized the truth of Jesus’ name baptism, only to turn away (like the rich young ruler) because the personal cost of obedience was too great for them to accept. For these individuals, their rejection was not rooted in the belief their previous views were correct. They knew they were wrong and apparently never did anything about it.
I’ll say again I think you and I are on the same page, if not on the same line. 😉
As you know, we’ve stretched the parameters of this thread beyond its original scope. I would like to explain why the formula is salvific, but we can perhaps take that up at another time.
All the best.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 10:58 am
Scalia,
Yes, the price for any sin is spiritual death. But those who have been saved are justified. Justification by faith is a status that is not forfeited by some particular act of disobedience. Does that disobedience displease God? Of course. But we don’t become unjustified, or unregenerate everytime we fail to obey some divine command. That’s my point.
You say we are on the same page (and even on the same line), and yet you say you believe the formula is salvific, whereas I would not. Am I missing something here?
Jason
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 11:22 am
Jason, when I say, “same page,” I am referring to the fact that we both believe water baptism is essential to salvation, and that the biblical mandate is baptism should be administered in Jesus’ name. Although you do not “see any reason” why somebody who has been baptized without the correct formula is lost, you do not rule out the necessity of the formula due to the fact it is connected with what is indisputably salvific — water baptism. Since you believe the formula should be taught, even to those who’ve been baptized otherwise, I think that more than adequately puts us on the same page. If you had ruled out the salvific nature of the formula, I would not say we are on the same page (hence, my earlier expression of thanks to you for saving me a lot of typing). 🙂
Does that clear it up?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 11:26 am
Jason writes,
Do you spell this out elsewhere? If so, may I please have the link.
If you can encapsulate, I’d like to know the NT justification (pun intended) for this. Are you saying that if you deliberately disobey God’s command, without repenting of it for the rest of your life, you’re still saved? Chapter and verse, please. 🙂
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 11:37 am
Do I spell out the doctrine of justification by faith?
Let me just ask you: Do you believe a regenerate person has not repented over some particular sin will be lost if he died?
Theology is not always chapter and verse. And this is theology. As I said, I’m not claiming God’s cool with sin. What I am claiming is that if every act of disobedience results in our damnation, then regeneration and justification mean nothing. Should we always strive to obey the Lord? Of course. But when we fail, we do not suddenly become unregenerate or unjustified until such time that we repent. We are still saved, even if the Lord is displeased with what we have done. Should we repent? Obviously so. Should we stop doing the sin? Obviously so. I am not advocating some sort of sloppy grace. But neither would I advocate the idea that every act of disobedience causes us to be temporarily lost until we repent. That view (not saying it’s yours) makes a mockery of salvation, and renders justification meaningless.
Jason
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 11:55 am
Ok, so you cannot point me to NT passages that prove what you say. Since Post 34 is all I have to go on, I’ll take it step-by-step. You write,
How so? From Post 33, I am tying a person’s relationship with God with h/er refusal to repent. A person who deliberately disobeys God’s command and refuses to repent thereof has, at the very least, a MAJOR problem. I see nothing in biblical justification to warrant the belief such a person is saved.
Please note, I am not talking about simple failure or human weakness. I am talking about deliberation.
And what if we don’t, Jason? We’re still saved? In your view, apparently so.
That’s good — and I don’t think that’s what you intend — but I wonder what the practical effect of that would be. If we say a person can willfully and deliberately disobey God, refuse to repent of that sin for the rest of h/er life, and still be saved, how does that not result in sloppy lives? I can see how that works for Calvin, but I don’t see that in the Bible.
“Some particular sin”? Jason, the willful, DELIBERATE disregard of God’s command is rebellion. It is not some human weakness or failing; it is outright rebellion. And the refusal of a person to repent of rebellion will most certainly jeopardize that person’s soul.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Salvific nature of the formula ?? ….wait a minute.
There is no salvific nature in the formula, the salvific nature is in your faith in Jesus Christ by the grace of God. We are saved by grace through faith. There is no scripture to support that your salvation is directly contingent upon your mode/formula of baptism – this is nonsense !
Yes, you must be baptized because Jesus said to be baptized.
Is baptism salvific ? The scripture says “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. Sure I would say it’s salvific as much as the baptism is tied to your faith otherwise you would just get wet. Your faith is the key point here. Jesus Name baptism means that you believe in Jesus Christ and are identifying with Him. There is no scriptural support that Jesus Name baptism is exclusive to a specifically invoked formula. We do know that baptism is directly and salvifically tied to faith in Jesus Christ. Sure you can utter, “in Jesus Name”, but if that person is Simon the sorcerer, you can utter “in Jesus Name” till the cows come home because it doesn’t mean a thing !! That said, Simon was given a chance to repent of his evil thoughts not his false-baptism even though it appears he did not submit to baptism with the right intentions in his heart.
Then there were the sons of Sceva, who tried to invoke the Name of Jesus to cast out an evil spirit and the evil spirit overcame them. This is another example of how it is the individual’s identification with Christ through faith that makes the difference.
I know you don’t believe that “in Jesus Name” is a magical formula, but the way it is discussed here, I have no other reason to believe that it is some sort of magical formula because it is being insisted that it be invoked without any reason other than that is what the scriptures say. We must ask not only what the scriptures say, but what do the scriptures mean.
I fully believe that we must be baptized in Jesus Name, and that is what the scriptures say, but I do not believe that means there is a magical formula that must be followed. I understand it to mean having faith in the One (Jesus) I am being baptized into.
As I said before, by insisting on the formula you can cause unnecessary division and discord which is a more serious issue than a formula.
Look at the arguments it has caused just in these posts. I’ve had my head ripped off about 3 or 4 times by Scalia, and did the same to him at least once, maybe twice….
Scalia, I am sorry if I came across harshly to you in previous posts. Jason, you’re the peace maker here, I wish I had your demeanor when writing these posts. My hope is despite some emotional outbursts, we can all learn from our discussions.
I’m holding my breath as I await another beating from Scalia………:)
Naz
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Naz, I don’t have time for a thorough reply right now. I’ll only say, per the link I provided to Bro. Bernard’s book, we reject baptismal regeneration. In fact, Bro. Bernard specifically addresses the “magical formula” issue and he, as I, rejects it. Faith is what validates water baptism and its formula.
Since we’ve already stretched the thread beyond its original scope, I don’t know how much leeway Jason wants to grant here. I’ll reply more thoroughly to your latest post when I get more time.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Scalia,
I think we may have different understandings of the implications of justification by faith, or perhaps we are just envisioning different scenarios. I have been thinking more along the lines of a person struggling with sin, or not seeing the Biblical formula as important. You seem to be envisioning those who are in open rebellion against God. In my understanding of salvation, someone who has been saved has to try pretty hard to be lost. What exactly can cause them to become lost, I cannot say. Clearly we should always strive to submit ourselves to the commands of God, and when we fail, we should repent. How much disobedience, and how much non-repentance God will tolerate before he puts us up for adoption is a line I cannot draw in the sand.
As for baptismal regeneration, we are much closer to the Catholics than Evangelicals on this. While we don’t believe that baptism qua baptism (without faith) has the power to regenerate, we do believe that baptism is part of regeneration. I would be happy accepting the label “baptismal regenerationist” so long as this qualification is made. Perhaps we should call ourselves neo-baptismal regenerationists. 🙂
And feel free to elaborate on baptismal regeneration or why you think the formula is salvific.
Jason
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Jason writes,
Yes. The more we converse, that appears to be the case.
Yes, that is correct.
Perhaps we differ here too.
I Cor. 9
27. But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Luke 9
23. And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Col. 3
5. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6. For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
I could reproduce a lot more, but I think these suffice. There are things that only God can do for us, and there are things we must do that God will not do. God will do His part, but if we neglect our responsibilities, it is indeed very easy to fall.
Hebrews 2
1. Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
2. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Yes, that is correct.
Again, I agree. See? I told you we’re on the same page. 🙂
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Naz, before I reply in more detail to Post 36, I’ll address my ripping your head off. My reaction to that observation was to re-read all my replies to you. In my estimation, every one of my posts, except for No. 27, is a rational rebuttal of your statements. If there is any “ripping” involved, it is with respect to your arguments, or lack thereof. As said, from my vantage, my only “nasty” Post is #27; and even then my acerbity was a reaction to what I consider completely irrelevant statements made by you. Who is or isn’t lost, who is or isn’t judging, has no bearing on the topic: The singular use of name in Mat. 28:19, or, by extension, what the proper formula for baptism is. Of course, that definitely entails what constitutes the new birth, but appeals to emotion or extra-biblical “common sense” have no place in biblical debate.
That said, if you’d like to start anew, I am quite willing to cooperate.
In that light, it appears to me that several of your statements about what we believe are inaccurate. Again, that is no crime in itself. It may be due to what others have told you, or it may in fact be what your former church teaches/taught. I have found that many Apostolic ministers have inadequate theological training, and even less training in logic. Many churches have been hurt by well-meaning but misguided ministers who either promulgate unscriptural practices, or who attack as unscriptural something that actually has a sound basis in biblical principle. Regardless how you came to perceive what we believe about the formula, your statements make it clear to me your perception is imprecise. I GENTLY recommend you thoroughly understand what you criticize before you try to take it down.
Again, I have linked Bro. Bernard’s book in Post 19. Please read the portions dealing with faith, works, baptism, and the Jesus’ name formula. Even if you end up disagreeing with Bernard, you will have a far better understanding of what we’re trying to say. I could try to reproduce it all here, but space does not permit such an enterprise. My posts, as you can tell, are long enough. 😉
Again, I am running out of time. When I can squeeze a few more minutes out of my very hectic schedule, I’ll try to cut to the chase and elaborate on the salvific nature of the formula. Thank you, Jason, for opening this up.
LikeLike
October 19, 2010 at 9:12 am
Scalia, thanks for the response. I attended a Oneness Pentecostal church for over 10 years. I have read many of Mr. Bernard’s books and have seen some of his debates on the Oneness vs. Trinity debates.
I think I fully understand what the oneness pentecostal doctrine is. As a matter of fact, I see it even more clearly now than ever and I believe there are some fundamental flaws in some areas that I do not agree with any more. I don’t want to take the time at the moment to elaborate, but that is where I am coming from. I feel that are disagreements are rooted in some fundamental approaches we have taken in interpreting the scriptures and its application. I will leave it at that for now.
Naz
LikeLike
October 19, 2010 at 9:49 am
Naz writes,
That’s fine, Naz. You’ve got to be true to yourself, and if you have valid reasons for disagreeing with us, I respect that.
As that relates to this thread, I respectfully say that is insufficient. You are rationally obligated to identify the inferential mistakes in our argument that:
a) Concludes the baptismal formula is, “In the name of Jesus.”
b) Concludes the oral invocation of that name in the formula is necessary.
If you fail to do so, your views will be rejected. I think you can agree that the failure to dismantle our arguments will never persuade us that our arguments are invalid.
If you’ve read The New Birth, I must say your characterization of what I believe with respect to the baptismal formula does not coincide with what he and other Oneness writers have taught. That is why I wonder whether you really understand our position.
In any event, I may have time later today to encapsulate my position with respect to what the biblical term “in the name of” means, and how it relates to water baptism. I also hope to demonstrate the connection between faith and act.
Regards.
LikeLike
October 19, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Naz, you mention attending a Oneness Pentecostal church for 10 years. That implies, of course, you no longer attend a Oneness church of any stripe. The “fundamental” differences you refer to are thus across the board. Per a previous post, your view of baptism’s “essentiality” appears restricted to mere obedience, not that it constitutes, in part, the new birth. However, if obedience is essential, then it follows the formula is essential if that is what Christ commanded. Even if you deny that water baptism is a component of the new birth, you must logically affirm the necessity of the formula out of obedience. The only rational alternative is to deny Christ taught any formula. That appears to be what you’ve been affirming. If that is the case, I offer the following encapsulated observations about the biblical meaning of the term “in the name of.”
The argument that the ancient concept of “name” strictly referred to the authority or person of an individual, and not h/er personal name is inaccurate. The above discussion before you, Naz, began contributing demonstrates that. I recommend you read it if you haven’t already done so.
Leviticus 19
12. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
This corresponds to the Third Commandment against taking the name of the LORD (tetragrammaton) in vain.
Jeremiah 14
14. Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Of course, when prophets prophesied, they used words like, “Thus saith the LORD,” or “The word of the LORD came unto me saying.” They orally invoked the name of God when they prophesied in God’s name. With respect to false prophecy, notice the following:
Jeremiah 23
25. I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.
26. How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;
27. Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.
These false prophets prophesied lies in God’s name, and the effect of their prophecies was to cause God’s people to forget His name. He describes this by comparing their behavior with their fathers, who “have forgotten my name for Baal.” We thus see that “in the name of,” or, “in my name,” does not exclude the oral invocation of a personal name.
Micah 4
5. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.
How is this related to a personal name?
Zechariah 13
2. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.
3. And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.
Again, “the name of his god,” “names of the idols,” and “in the name of the LORD,” includes personal names.
Deuteronomy
5. If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.
6. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
The inheritance and portion of an Israelite was thus tied to his name.
Judges 18
29. And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.
Laish wasn’t simply reestablished under the “authority” or “person” of Dan. Dan’s offspring replaced the actual name of that city with the name of their father by calling it Dan – his personal name.
1 Samuel 20
42. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
Jonathan and David had “sworn…in the name of the LORD.” How did they swear in God’s name? They said, “The LORD be between me and thee…” In other words, swearing in the name of the LORD entails vocalizing His name.
1 Samuel 25
9. And when David’s young men came, they spake to Nabal according to all those words in the name of David, and ceased.
10. And Nabal answered David’s servants, and said, Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? there be many servants now a days that break away every man from his master.
How did Nabal know David’s name? He knew it when David’s young men spoke to Nabal “in the name of David.” If the term, “in the name of” merely meant “authority,” without regard for a personal name, Nabal would not have known who they were talking about.
1 Kings 18
26. And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.
The prophets of Baal “called on the name of Baal.” How did they do this? They said, “O Baal, hear us.” Thus, “calling on the name of” entails personal name invocation.
My next post will tie this background information with how similar terms are used in the NT.
Regards.
LikeLike
October 19, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Given the backdrop of OT “name theology,” let us consider NT examples.
Matthew 1
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
The personal name JESUS is directly tied to the remission of sins.
Matthew 12
21. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
Why would Gentiles trust in His name if it did not include the remission of their sins?
Luke 24
47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Again, the remission of sins is tied to the name of Jesus.
Acts 2
38. Then Peter said unto them, 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.
Ditto.
Acts 10
43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Remission of sins is obtained through His (Jesus’) name.
Acts 22
16. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Ditto.
1 Corinthians 1
13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Jesus was crucified for us, and that is why we are baptized in the name of Jesus. Paul contrasts his name with that of Jesus, again demonstrating the connection between Jesus’ name and salvation.
The counter argument that Christ’s name merely refers to his authority, to the exclusion of His personal name, is thus without biblical warrant.
Acts 3
6. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
16. And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
Peter orally invoked the name of Jesus and explained it was Jesus’ name, through faith in His name, that produced the healing of the lame man.
Acts 4
10. Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
12. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Once again, the name of Jesus is not only connected to healing, it is directly related to our salvation. The comparison is unmistakable: Peter’s oral invocation of Jesus’ name is directly related to our salvation, with faith being the validation thereof.
I have other very pressing matters to attend to. I’ll continue as time permits…
LikeLike
October 19, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Continued…
Although I disagree with Bro. Bernard in several areas, I think he does a very good job explaining faith, works, the role of baptism in the new birth, and the name of Jesus. I leave it to you, Naz, to delineate the flaws in his argument.
I will only summarize my view by saying that water baptism is necessary to effect the remission of sins; it is through the name of Jesus we receive the remission of sins; there is no other name by which we are saved; Jesus’ name is above every name; the term “in the name of” entails the invocation of a personal name; the name of Jesus is consistently, without exception, directly associated with water baptism; we are consistently commanded to baptize in Jesus’ name; therefore, the name of Jesus in baptism is as necessary to effect the remission of sins as the act of baptism is.
Again, I’m out of time.
To be continued…
LikeLike
October 20, 2010 at 10:07 am
Jason:
Since you clearly understand the salvific nature of water baptism and how it relates to faith, the principle that makes baptism a component of the new birth applies to the formula. Repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus is what effects the remission of sins. With faith as the validation of the act, one cannot separate the name of Jesus from either the person of Christ or legitimate baptism. As faith, repentance and water baptism are necessary to effect the remission of sins, so is the name of Christ in baptism. We are not merely commanded to baptize all nations, we are to baptize them in Jesus’ name. Peter did not merely command the Jews at Pentecost or Cornelius’ household to be baptized. They were commanded to be baptized in Jesus’ name. Consequently, valid Christian baptism must be administered in the name of Jesus.
IF the above is correct, the only substantive objection I can think of it conceptual. How does a verbal expression constitute a component of regeneration? Whatever the answer to that question, I think the textual record is clear: the name of Jesus means salvation, we are saved by His name, our sins are remitted through His name, our sins are also remitted through baptism, and we put on Christ when we are baptized.
I think part of the answer is elucidated in many biblical passages. I’ll just cite a couple:
Luke 6
45. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
A person’s mouth will express what is in h/er heart.
Romans 10
9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
We thus see that verbal confession is a necessary component of salvation. Moreover, this is not just any confession; a person must verbally acknowledge Jesus is the Lord. Genuine faith will produce a specified act. Without the concomitant act, there is no faith (it is dead). With respect to baptism, the context of Romans 10 makes it clear that genuine faith entails obedience to the gospel (vs. 16). Obedience to the gospel, of course, includes baptism in Jesus’ name. Since valid faith produces the specified act of obedience to the gospel, it follows that baptism in Jesus’ name is one of the specified acts God has ordained. The verbal component cannot be separated from the birth process; and if it cannot be separated, and if He commanded baptism in His name to effect the remission of sins, the baptismal formula is salvific if it is validated by faith.
LikeLike
October 20, 2010 at 10:38 am
Scalia, this is just a quick question. I haven’t had time to formulate a response.
As a start, please take time to answer my multiple choice question below. Thanks.
Part A : A person has believed in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his sins, has genuinely repented of his sins and has been baptized in the Name of the F,S,HS ?
Part B : Take that same person now, some time later he has someone tell him he needs to be re-baptized in Jesus Name. But he thinks he doesn’t really need to because he thought he already obeyed the command to be baptized based on Math28:19 and understood that the “Name of Jesus” was referring to mainly the authority of Jesus Christ to forgive sins and not necessarily a literal name invocation.
1) Is this person lost and damned to hell in :
a) Part A
b) Part B
c) Part A and B
d) Neither A or B
Naz
LikeLike
October 20, 2010 at 10:44 am
Naz:
I think a legitimate rebuttal on your part would entail a rejection of water baptism as a component of the new birth. If water baptism is a post-birth act of obedience on par with the command to witness to the lost, then no argument about the necessity of the formula will persuade you. As previously stated, you would, at best, affirm the necessity of Jesus’ name baptism as a post-conversion act of obedience.
However, you do not clearly state you believe the formula of Jesus’ name baptism is even correct. The closest you’ve come is when you state you do not object to Jesus’ name being “uttered” at baptism. I guess one could say that since you may not believe any formula is salvific, you would not object to the historical Jesus’ name formula. In any event, I see only three logical options for you:
1) No formula is required.
2) Some formula is needed, but any will do.
3) Some formula is needed within a specified verbal zone.
With respect to 1, you need to rebut the above arguments to sustain this.
For 2, I think you’ll agree this is mistaken. You would not accept baptism in the name of John Wayne or George Washington.
As to 3, since I’m certain you reject 2, you would then agree with us that what one says at baptism does matter to a certain degree. If this is acknowledged, the above argument needs to be dismantled in order to sustain your objections.
Regards.
LikeLike
October 20, 2010 at 11:29 am
Naz, what is the relevance of my opinion on the status of the person you mention with our discussion? At best, one could prove doubt on my part; but my doubt doesn’t change biblical teaching. You and I could both doubt the historicity of the Noachian Flood, but our doubt doesn’t ipso facto doesn’t warrant its dismissal.
Recall I asked you whether a 15-year-old Muslim girl who was killed in a car accident would burn in Hell forever. If her only exposure to Christianity was a caricature thereof by her community, and if she was a moral, upstanding, devout girl, is she going to burn in the Lake of Fire forever? If you doubt she will, does that change the biblical message of faith in Christ? Of course not. What we think and what the Bible actually teaches may be two different things.
That does not imply I have doubt about what I believe. Questions along this line are superfluous because they have nothing to do with the discussion.
I, therefore, respectfully decline to take the discussion off-topic. I can definitely answer it without hesitation, but since it is irrelevant, I won’t go there.
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Scalia,
Given your posts to Naz, I am having a hard time seeing how you don’t believe that the baptismal formula is what saves someone. I’m not saying you see it as a magical incantation that can save by itself (you would say faith is necessary as well), but you do seem to affirm that one cannot be saved without it. In this, we disagree. I do not think the formula has a bearing on the spiritual realities conferred through baptism. I understand the formula to be descriptive of what is happening in baptism, but it does not cause the spiritual realities that God confers on an individual through baptism.
I agree with you that there are many passages which show that “in the name of” was actually spoken, but all this does is counter those who say there is no such thing as a baptismal formula. It does not mean that the formula itself is invested with power such that its presence brings salvation, and its absence prevents salvation. Passages like Acts 4 which say there is no salvation in any other name than “Jesus” are not referring to the power of the actual name “Jesus,” but the power of the person “Jesus.” Again, that doesn’t mean there’s no need to utter the name Jesus in a baptismal formula, but it does mean that we shouldn’t understand the power to be in the utterance. The power is in the person. The reason we are forgiven in baptism is because of Jesus’ atonement on our behalf. That’s why we put our faith in Him in baptism, and invoke His name. But it’s not the invocation of His name that causes one to be forgiven; it’s one’s faith in Him.
While I agree with you that baptism is to be administered in the name of Jesus, I don’t think those who have been confused by Jesus’ own words, and were baptized using the Matthean formula will be damned for that. While we ought to baptize in Jesus’ name, and while we ought to teach this as the Biblical teaching, I don’t think we need to invest it with soteriological significance in order to show it’s important. And that’s what I am afraid the UPC has traditionally done.
Jason
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Jason writes,
I explained this in Post 44. Peter’s declaration in Acts 4:12 is within the context of the healing described in chapter 3. Peter uttered the name of Jesus and explained it was Jesus’ name, through faith in His name, that brought healing. That is a rather odd explanation if he only meant the person of Jesus, to the exclusion of His name, healed that man. All Peter needed to say was, “Jesus healed this man.” Please note, I am not saying it was only the name that brought healing; but both Peter’s actions and explanation make it clear the expression of Christ’s name was a necessary component of the act.
But our critics can argue they have an equally difficult time seeing how we don’t believe that the water is what saves someone (Jesus saves). The rite of baptism, in itself, isn’t what saves. As the account of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 demonstrates, faith is the prerequisite of baptism. Even so, as you’ve acknowledged my position to be, the formula cannot save without the prerequisite faith.
Since you already believe Jesus’ name baptism is a divine command, it follows you believe the formula is a necessary, concomitant with conversion (since it occurs just prior to baptism), act of obedience. You thus at the very least acknowledge this utterance is something God has commanded the church to fulfill; and a conscious disregard for that command would displease God, correct?
I also explained the connection between the formula and salvation. Since you don’t directly engage that explanation, I have no reason to abandon my position. Of course you’re not insisting that I do, but I fail to see how your explanation affects the UPC’s (as you know, I am not UPC) position.
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 8:45 am
Scalia and Jason, instead of responding right away, I’ve taken some time to think about baptism and justification. I think Jason spoke of this in earlier posts, but I think we need to think about how we are justified before God and is baptism a part of that justification. If not, then the baptismal “formula” discussion is mute, not to say a person should not be baptized of course, just as a person should not steal or lie after he has been saved.
Romans chapter 4 is a good chapter for us to study as it describes how Abraham was justified before he was circumcised,and that circumcision was a “seal” of his faith. Similarly, we can apply this concept to baptism to help our understanding. I will admit that more study of this is required by myself, but this is what I feel is the real underlying issue concerning our baptismal formula discussion.
These are just preliminary thoughts for now…..thanks.
Naz
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 9:37 am
Naz, I can assure you both Jason and I have thought a great deal about justification. In fact, Bro. Bernard thoroughly analyzes that issue in the link I have provided you. Moreover, you might want to read Jason’s treatment of this in his paper Justification by Faith. You might also want to peruse Acts 2:38 and the Purpose of Baptism, also written by Jason.
Regards.
LikeLike
October 23, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Wow. This is a really interesting discussion. Does the name matter in baptism? If I may chime in… First the new testament knows no other way than being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. So any other invocation doesn’t hold water.
Naz Don’t worry I’m not one to rip any heads off but I do submit this response, cautiously. You do believe in Jesus Name baptism, from what I’ve read, but just not it being necessary for salvation. If the new testament knows no other name then I’d say any baptism that is not in the name of Jesus Christ isn’t a baptism. Since the name and baptism itself goes hand in hand it is impossible to separate it. Also I’d like to address the root of your concern. It appears you are speaking out because you perceive a misunderstanding of the biblical method. A misunderstanding that oneness preachers have damaged people for being too harsh about the “formula”. All that can be said is if you were in the 1st century you would have been baptized in Jesus’ name without question, so why question if it is necessary now? Is it your attempt at bringing peace between people you know? This appears to be why you are seeking validation by debate. I may be wrong.
Scripture teaches to do everything in the name. We pray in Jesus’ name – is this a prayer formula? No, it is what it is because he is who he is! The larger point (I think Jason may have made it in earlier posts.)is the truth of who Jesus is. I know of many wonderful trinitatians who sincerely believe that there will be three persons greeting them in heaven because of the doctrine their preacher/teacher espouses and because of the titles they were baptized in. It is important what the preacher is and how he baptizes or else someones faith may be misplaced. I was in a discussion with a lady at Mickey D’s one night and I told her we baptize in the name of Jesus Christ only and she stopped in her tracks and in the next breath she said, “You mean to tell me that all three are one?” And it wasn’t even a discussion about the Godhead. She immediately got the revelation but staggered at it’s brilliance. All by simply telling someone how we baptize.
Is it baptism without the name? I’d say not. Not if we are referring to the Acts way. We will be hated for His names’ sake. Talk about divisive… 😉
Scalia Any resources for a preacher needing logic training?
AllIt’s been said that we oneness folks are divisive because of our insistence upon using the Name. It doesn’t have to be divisive if the wayward would turn back to the book of Acts way. Insisting on doing things by the book is not being legalistic, if so, declaring that someone must be pray or repent is legalistic. It was, after all, Jesus who died for us and it is Jesus’ blood that was shed that cleanses us. To even condone an extra biblical method would be watering down the actions of our martyred brothers and sisters of the first century. In 2010, a time of biblical illiteracy and becom experts of entertainment, upholding the book with clear and concise reasons why will make a greater impact upon our world than giving in to the onslaught of postmodern thinking. Jason has helped me realize through this blog that we do not have to crawfish, we can stand up to the wayward thinking with truth.
Blessings to you guys.
LikeLike
October 24, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Hi, cs!
I enjoyed reading your post. With respect to logic, I like Schaum’s Outline of Theory and Problems of Logic, McGraw-Hill, 1998. Especially important to “lay” logicians are chapters 1 (Argument Structure), 2 (Argument Evaluation), and 8 (Fallacies). Mastering these chapters will enable you to construct solid arguments and instantly spot fallacious ones.
All the best to you, my friend.
LikeLike
October 24, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Praise the Lord my Brother! Thanks for the resource! I need to grab that copy. I also thoroughly enjoyed your posts, but that goes without saying.
I forgot to add this to the earlier post.
John the Baptist baptized unto repentance with the believer looking toward the soon coming of Christ. Since no name was ever mentioned it goes without saying that a name didn’t matter. However, the first thing the apostle Paul did was find out how they were baptized. These disciples of John believed on Christ but they were not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. They were re-baptized.
Need I even mention how Paul said he never baptized anyone in his name? A name was used, a name was important, a name is required. “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.” “The name of the Lord is a strong tower the righteous run into it and are saved.” “…There is no other name given among men…” Man I love those verses!
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Scalia,
Peter verbally said the name “Jesus” to invoke Jesus’ authority, but that does not mean it was the pronouncement of the name that brought the healing. It was Jesus that brought the healing. I have no reason to believe that if Peter had merely prayed for the man to be healed, or said, “God, heal the man,” that the man would not have been healed.
Yes, I would agree that it is necessary to use the Jesus’ name formula as part of our obedience to Scripture’s teaching, and a willful rejection by those who are convinced that the Bible teaches this but refuse to submit to it are displeasing God.
Jason
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 4:43 pm
cs,
You mentioned the re-baptizing of the disciples of John. I don’t think this is a good parallel to the issue we are facing today. The disciples in Acts 19 that Paul baptized were non-Christians who did not have faith in the Messiah when they were baptized the first time. Their original baptism was not a baptism into Christ and made no mention of Him. It was just a baptism of repentance. In contrast, we are telling Christians who had faith in Jesus when they were baptized, that they need to be rebaptized. Why? Is it because they did not believe in Jesus when they were baptized the first time? Is it because their faith was misplaced? No, it’s because the person doing the baptizing said the wrong words over them. I don’t mean to say such individuals should not be rebaptized. In fact, I would urge them to do so. I just think Acts 19 does not provide us with a good parallel.
You noted that “if you were in the 1st century you would have been baptized in Jesus’ name without question.” Very true. But we’re not in the 1st century. We are far removed from the received apostolic practice, and we are confronted with two seemingly contradictory baptismal formulas in Scripture. Most people aren’t even aware of the difference. Of those who are, they usually have a hard time seeing how someone’s salvation can hang on whether or not they have read Acts or had certain words pronounced over them in the tank. They reason, “How could Jesus damn someone for repeating his own words in baptism?” I don’t want to sound as if I am blaming God, but it is His statement in Matthew 28:19 that causes all the confusion in the first place. If He hadn’t said that, or was clearer on His intent, there would be no debate at all. Everyone would be baptized in the name of Jesus. Again, I think we should baptize in the name of Jesus, but I cannot conclude that God will damn those who were baptized in the “F,S,HS.”
I can understand those who upon hearing about the debate, don’t think it’s that important, and who think God is fine with their baptism. After all, they just did what Jesus told them to do. How could Jesus be displeased with that? And many of them reason that if the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the name of Jesus, then to be baptized with the formula “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is to be baptized in Jesus’ name. If one means the other, then why would it matter which one is used? Others reason that by saying “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” Jesus is already being mentioned, so there is no reason to get rebaptized in His name. Granted, we will come back with “Son is not a name, but a title,” but this seems like hair-splitting to most. So I think there are good reasons people have for thinking this issue is not important for their salvation, even if they are willing to admit that Jesus’ name baptism is valid.
Jason
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Jason, you write:
But that is not how Peter described it. You’re finding it difficult at best to wrap your mind around the notion that what he uttered had anything to do with that man’s healing; and since you cannot comprehend how that can be the case, you reject it. To repeat, Peter said it was Jesus’ name, through faith in His name, that brought healing. It is odd, to say the least, to explain it that way when all that was needed was a simple, “Jesus Christ healed him.” Arguing the utterance was irrelevant is not evidenced by the text. However, the direct and literal interpretation of his words in Acts 3 & 4 clearly reveal the utterance of Christ’s name was a component of the miracle.
Let’s look at baptism again with respect to the remission of sins. Millions of Christians will argue there is nothing in baptism itself that saves anybody. Jesus is the one who saves us, not the muscular movement of a minister in immersing us in water, or the willingness on our part to get wet. It is an outward sign of an inward grace, they say. The scriptures associating “salvation” with the act is only testimonial. They consider your argument that baptism is a component of the new birth as ridiculous as the notion a formula has anything to do with salvation. There are all kinds of rebuttals against that, but first and foremost would be that the Scriptures teach otherwise. Their inability to understand that is irrelevant.
Moreover, as stated above, we ARE NOT merely commanded to be baptized. We are commanded to be baptized in Jesus’ name. You stop short of saying it has nothing to do with salvation (you don’t rule it out), but that is in essence your position. Will you also say that immersion isn’t necessary? Will sprinkling or pouring suffice too? After all, most people who are sprinkled (especially those who were adults when it occurred) consider their baptism just as valid as yours. Since you acknowledge the Jesus’ name formula is the only one biblically commanded, it is vital to recall that every passage linking baptism to the remission of sins also links the name of Christ thereto. It is incorrect to say water baptism is for the remission of sins. Rather, it is water baptism in Jesus’ name that effects the remission of sins. To soteriologically separate the name from baptism is thus without scriptural warrant. You cannot cite one against the other.
In this we agree.
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Jason wrote to cs,
But as you know, this is irrelevant. What we have a hard time understanding doesn’t change what the text says. I come from a trinitarian background, so I know EXACTLY what they think when they are initially exposed to Jesus’ name baptism. I know you realize this, but I’ll say it anyway, this issue doesn’t turn on what people think about it. The salvific nature of the formula is or isn’t a biblical doctrine.
No, Jason. HIS statement didn’t cause anybody confusion in the early church. They knew without doubt He was commanding them to be baptized in His name (you affirm this). What has brought confusion in our day is the false doctrine of the Trinity and the mangling of Christ’s words in foisting an unbiblical formula upon the masses, first by coercion (power of the State), then by tradition. Their confusion is rooted in false teaching. I acknowledge they may be since, but they are wrong nonetheless.
But what you mention are not “good reasons.” They are attempts (by them) to rationalize away the text. They can only appear to be good reasons if we agree with them (that they’re saved with or without the biblically commanded formula) in the first place; but that makes such an assertion question-begging.
This whole debate (about the formula) turns on whether the literal name of Jesus has any soteriological significance. I’ve already reproduced a plethora of scriptures validating the affirmation thereof. It is up to those who disagree to textually demonstrate otherwise. In other words, one must argue that all the scriptures that affirm the salvific nature of Jesus’ name cannot imply His actual name; they only imply His person and/or power. Such a position has neither prima facie nor embracive validity, for the very same arguments one must utilize against the formula can also be used against baptism itself.
I’ve encapsulated my position in Post 46. Again, by all means refute it if you’d like.
Finally, with respect to those “sincere” Christians who believe otherwise, the Scriptures address that also:
Matthew 5
6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
John 16
13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…
Philippians 1 (ESV)
6. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 12
2. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith…
Whether we live in a great metropolis or are alone in the desert (Ethiopian eunuch), the Spirit of God will guide hungry souls to the truth. If they are sincerely in love with Jesus, they will not reject His word.
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Something I didn’t add: Per my arguments above, attempts to separate the person of Christ from his name in order to sustain the premise that His actual name doesn’t have soteriological significance fail even without reference to baptism proper.
LikeLike
October 26, 2010 at 9:46 am
Jason
Concerning the re-baptism of John’s Disciples. True it may not be a perfect parallel but it does illustrate the importance to get it right.
I’ve always framed my discussion around the fact of becoming like the 1st century church. After all, if the church changes over time at what point does it cease being the book of Acts church? Baptism in Jesus name is important for several reasons, doing it the way the 1st century church did it is one of those reasons.
Blessings.
LikeLike
October 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Scalia,
Yes, Peter said “And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.” But I do not understand him to mean that it was by uttering the name Jesus coupled with faith in Jesus that the man was healed. I understand Peter to be saying it is Jesus who did this miracle, and He did so because we believed in Him to do it. So I would read it as follows: “And his name [name = person = Jesus]—by faith in his name [person = Jesus]—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.”
You say “It is odd, to say the least, to explain it that way when all that was needed was a simple, ‘Jesus Christ healed him.’” I would agree. To you and I it sounds quite odd, but that’s because we don’t use “name” the way they did. It is equally odd to me to say such things like “the name of the Lord is a strong tower” and “there are many names in Sardis who have not defiled themselves.” It would be much clearer and straightforward if they would just say “the Lord is a strong tower” and “there are many people in Sardis….” But we’re dealing with ancient Semitic ways of speaking, not 21st century American ways.
If we acknowledge this, and read the texts in the way I am suggesting, it obviates the seeming double-speak of saying one can’t be saved unless they used the right formula, but also saying the formula does not cause salvation.
You say we are not merely commanded to be baptized, but to be baptized in the name of Jesus. I agree, but like I told cs, no one would dispute doing it this way if Jesus didn’t command his apostles to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Someone could equally appeal to Mt 28:19 and say “not only does Scripture command us to be baptized, but it commands us to be baptized in the name of the F,S,HS.” All this settles is that Scripture not only commands us to be baptized, but also to use a formula. It doesn’t settle for us which formula we should use, or if any causal relationship exists between the formula and the spiritual realities conferred on an individual in baptism. What Scripture is clear on is that such spiritual realities are conferred via the person’s faith in what God is doing through baptism, so that’s where I’m willing to stake my tent.
Yes, I would say immersion is not necessary. While immersion does appear to be the practice of the early church, there is no command to immerse per se, and contrary to popular belief, the word baptidzo does not have to mean “immerse.” It is used in contexts in which only one’s hands are washed, for example. That’s not to say I don’t think we should immerse. I think that is part of the symbolism in baptism, just like the formula, and thus should be the normative way we baptize. But the only thing that makes baptism efficacious is the faith of the baptizee in Jesus Christ.
Jason
LikeLike
October 26, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Scalia,
In regards to #60, I wasn’t saying that since the person thinks it doesn’t matter, that God thinks the same. I was simply describing the thinking of such individuals.
I agree that Jesus’ statement didn’t cause confusion in the early church, but this is irrelevant. Clearly it has caused confusion today. And I wouldn’t say that the confusion is to be blamed solely on the Trinity. Trinitarians have no problem praying “in the name of Jesus” only, so if Mt 28:19 did not exist, I’m sure they would have no problem being baptized in Jesus’ name alone either. Granted, the doctrine of the Trinity strengthens the resolve of some people to insist on Mt 28:19 over Acts, but the fact remains that the only reason the debate exists is because of what Jesus said. If He hadn’t said it, there would be no debate.
You wrote, “This whole debate (about the formula) turns on whether the literal name of Jesus has any soteriological significance. I’ve already reproduced a plethora of scriptures validating the affirmation thereof. It is up to those who disagree to textually demonstrate otherwise. In other words, one must argue that all the scriptures that affirm the salvific nature of Jesus’ name cannot imply His actual name; they only imply His person and/or power.” Consider prayer. Jesus said that we are to pray and ask the Father “in His name.” Given your hermeneutic, then, they must literally ask the Father saying “in Jesus’ name” in order for prayer to work. And yet of all the prayers we read in the NT church, not one of them ever begins or ends with the words “in Jesus’ name.” Why? Because Jesus’ point was not that we need to utter the words in prayer, but that we are to pray in His will, power, authority, etc. Now, I’m not arguing that this is completely parallel to baptism, because I do think they actually uttered a formula over the baptizee. Where I think there is a parallel is in the fact that we have terminology used that explicitly speaks of using “the name of Jesus,” and yet uttering the name itself was not what made the thing (in this case, prayer) work. What made it work was praying in the authority and power of Jesus, as though Jesus Himself were doing the praying. Likewise, I have no reason to think that the use of Jesus’ name is what makes baptism work. What makes it work is that it is done by Jesus’ authority, and the person’s faith in Jesus.
Jason
LikeLike
October 26, 2010 at 2:52 pm
cs,
I see your point, but the reason the disciples in Ephesus didn’t get it right is because they didn’t have faith in Jesus when they were baptized the first time. The reason we are saying people aren’t getting it right today is not because they didn’t have faith in Christ in their original baptism, but because they had the wrong words pronounced over them. About the only parallel is re-baptism. But what people want to know today is why they should get rebaptized if their faith was in Christ the first time they were baptized, and if thee formula itself cannot confer salvation.
And I agree about doing it right. We should strive to be as much like the early church as possible (100% in doctrine 100%, and ~90% in practice). 🙂
Jason
LikeLike
October 26, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Well, I guess a partial rebuttal is better than none. You say,
True. “Name” carried much more significance with the ancients than it does with us. “Name” wasn’t merely a replacement for “person without the name.” Rather, it was inseparable from a person. Instead of viewing these scriptures in light of semitic understanding, you ironically construe the modern usage of “name” to object to something that would pose no problem to them. You think it makes no sense for us to say the “name of the LORD is a strong tower,” but that the ancients would understand that to really mean that the Lord is a strong tower (with no reference to His actual name). But this isn’t how the ancients would have understood it. They would see the actual, literal name of God to be inseparable from His presence, and the invocation of His name in faith would bring the presence of God. As ISBE observes:
This is part of what I was getting at in Post 46. In your attempt to look at things from a semitic perspective, you actually end up misconstruing the ancient meaning of “name” because of an unwarranted bifurcation of the name and presence of God (Mt. 18:20).
If you believe the biblical mandate is to be baptized in Jesus’ name, then it most certainly settles the issue of what formula to use. He didn’t say in one place to use His name and then in another place say that it didn’t matter. The command in Mt. 28:19 is complemented by Acts 2:38. The apostles knew good and well what Christ was commanding.
If there is a “causal” relationship between the water and the “spiritual realities” (remission of sins) in baptism, the same scriptures which are used to support that claim also tie the name of Jesus with those “spiritual realities.” The attempt to bypass that is special pleading.
With respect to immersion, you acknowledge it was the “practice” of the early church, but you reject that the Greek word precludes other forms of washings. However, baptizo CAN mean immersion, and if that is how the early church baptized, then that is exactly what Christ meant when He commanded them to baptize all nations. Consequently, any objection to the contrary bears no relevance to the issue.
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 12:37 am
Jason writes,
Although your interaction with trinitarians is probably not as extensive as mine, I’m certain you’ve had plenty of experience with them. Based upon my experience, the scriptural case for Jesus’ name baptism is compelling. The consistent strain in the vast majority of my conversations with them is the hold of tradition on their theology (as I mentioned earlier). Were it not for the hold of tradition, I have little doubt the Apostolic formula would be prevalent today.
Good, because it isn’t. Since you acknowledge a formula is commanded and connected to an indisputably salvific act, and since the scriptural record consistently depicts converts being baptized under that formula, the appeal to prayer is disanalogous.
“All the prayers we read”?? Jason, by my count there are only three prayers that the gives us the precise words the supplicants spoke (Acts 1:24,25; 4:24-30; and 7:59-60), whereas there are at least nine references to Jesus’ name baptism. In the first instance, the Apostles prayed for a successor to Judas without Jesus’ name being recorded; in the second, the prayer ended, “and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus”; and in the third, “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” There are at least two other passages that relate to confession, and both of them entail vocalizing Jesus’ name (Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:11). Of course the Bible never tells us, “Make this statement word-for-word,” but the biblical record makes it clear they consistently, if not invariably, vocalized the name of Jesus; and in the one instance His name isn’t mentioned, it may have been simply left out (just like the unrecorded baptismal formula in Acts 8:38 & 16:33).
Moreover, we have at least three instances in Acts where the name of Jesus was vocalized just prior to healing:
Acts 3
6. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
Acts 9
34. And Peter said unto him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately.
Acts 16
18. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
Based upon the scriptural record, Jason, “I have no reason” to think your position is scripturally tenable.
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 11:09 am
Jason, I wholeheartedly agree with your most recent posts regarding what in Jesus Name means.
I think we need to be careful as Christians to follow the intent of what the new testament teaches rather than trying to satisfy the exact letter in all cases. By insisting that certain things need to be a done a very specific way, we are falling into the trap and mind-set of legalism without even realizing it. Those that will say that we need to obey the scriptures are correct. We need to obey the gospel which means (in a nutshell) we are to show love one towards another in light of the work of Jesus Christ. Obedience to the scriptures is not contingent upon always following prescribed methods and ways of doing things. If it does, then we are not living by the spirit but by the letter. In doing so, we then create new testament law and have fallen from the grace God has called us into. We say that it is faith in the blood of Jesus that saves, yet in practice we add a lot of other things to that and as a result are ready to quickly point fingers at those that are just not measuring up to “our” standard.
I believe you can be scripturally correct, but theologically wrong and displeasing in God’s eyes.
Scalia, I know, I am too liberal for you. But I’ve sat where you are and defended things like this just like you are now, thinking I am doing God a service and standing for the truth. My over zealousness alienated friends and family over the years and the picture of God I conveyed to them was unreachable. In addition to that I missed opportunities for growth and fellowship with others that loved the Lord but who I casually dismissed because they didn’t fit in my theological “box”.
I realize however that what I am trying to convey is an experience that a person cannot understand unless they’ve been there themselves. I will understand if you disregard this as nonsense and consider me scripturally untenable in my position.
We both have and believe the same scriptures, the difference is our interpretation and application of those scriptures. How you interpret and apply the scriptures is contingent upon the spirit and mind-set you bring to them. It is in that we find division, not because of the scriptures themselves.
Naz
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 11:52 am
Jason, I’d like to challenge your interpretation of Acts 19. Please notice what the previous chapter tells us:
Acts 18 (ESV)
24. Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.
25. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
26. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
27. And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,
28. for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
From this passage we learn that Apollos was at Ephesus, he spoke and taught accurately about Jesus, and knew only the baptism of John.
After he left Ephesus, Paul arrived there and “found some disciples” (this being some 20 years after Pentecost). Upon meeting them, Paul asked if they had received the Holy Ghost when they believed. Jason, if they had not been believers in Jesus, why would Paul ask them whether they had received the Holy Ghost? Why didn’t he ask them about their faith in Jesus? Why didn’t he say, “Did you know the Messiah has come in the person of Jesus?” It is no textual stretch to infer these disciples were acquainted with Apollos’ ministry, and that he had taught them “accurately” about Jesus. These disciples thus heard about Jesus and believed on Him (hence, Paul’s question about when they believed).
Moreover, Paul’s concern was with their receiving the Holy Ghost. He didn’t go through the whole death, burial and resurrection sermon. They already believed on Jesus to an imperfect degree and had been baptized unto repentance (meaning, of course, they had repented).
Paul’s next question is also odd if they didn’t believe on Jesus: Into what then were you baptized? Why was he concerned about their water baptism if “they didn’t have faith in Jesus,” as you allege? In that case, he should have begun to show “by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.”
I think the record is clear that they had faith in Jesus to an imperfect degree (like many nominal Christians), and part of the perfecting of their faith included being baptized in Jesus’ name.
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Naz, you write:
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Scalia, I did not imply that you have alienated people, only that this is what happened to me in my experience and what I witnessed with others who were like me.
I am glad that you have such friendships. I did not have the same success at first, but I’m learning.
My apologies………..
Naz
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Naz, thanks for the clarification.
Regards.
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Scalia, I would like to chime in on Acts 19.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
First of all, we don’t really know what these “disciples” knew about Jesus Christ. We cannot assume they even heard of Apollos or his ministry – that is reading into it a little although it is possible. We know they knew of John’s baptism and perhaps on the “One” to come after John. They did not hear about the Holy Ghost which means they did not understand or even hear
the message of Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Why Paul refers to them as disciples is perhaps that they were seen to be students of the scripture to Paul, we really don’t have a lot of detail here.
Secondly, Paul asking whether they received the Holy Ghost, could have been a short-cut way of asking whether they believed in Jesus Christ. There is only a few verses recorded here. I am sure there was more dialogue than what the scripture gives us. The scriptures are not an exhaustive account, but gives us only snippets of detail. We don’t know if Paul went into a dissertation about the death, burial and resurrection, maybe he did.
Thirdly, Paul did tell them that John said they should believe on Jesus Christ. Verse 5 says when the heard “this”, that is, that you should believe on Jesus, they got baptized. It appears that their faith was not in Jesus Christ on the outset and that once they understood Jesus was the One they needed to believe in, that is triggered the action to get baptized. Their baptism did not perfect their faith but was a seal of their faith in Jesus Christ once they “heard” that is what they needed to do.
Regarding Paul’s question about “unto what then were you baptized”. The word unto is the greek “eis” which I know you are familiar with. It can also mean “into”. So Paul was asking into what or whom were you baptized into ? Paul connected receiving the Holy Ghost with being baptized into Jesus Christ. So he is saying here, if you didn’t even hear of the Holy Ghost, what was the context of your baptism ? The disciples belief system was lacking faith in Jesus Christ.
Naz
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Naz, thanks for your observations. I appreciate your “chiming” in, but it appears you’ve “talked” right past me. I set forth why I think the context of Acts 18 & 19 evidences a belief in Jesus. This is augmented by the renown of Apollos and the fact he may have remained in Ephesus for some time after Aquila & Priscilla helped to perfect his knowledge of Jesus (see 18:27). Moreover, the introductory comments Paul makes appear nonsensical if they had no faith whatsoever in Jesus. I’m certain you’ve read Acts several times and are familiar with the evangelistic approach of the church. When they met unbelievers, they preached the gospel immediately.
Your point about Paul’s explanation of Christian baptism is well taken, but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. What we know from Acts is variant doctrines existed very early in church history. The fact Jesus is specifically named in in association with what Apollos taught evidences he had more than a passing acquaintance with some future messiah. We also know there was precedent for non-spirit-filled believers (Acts 8).
Paul’s dialog with them makes sense if they were believers in Jesus to some degree. As I noted above, it makes no sense if they didn’t. The fact various doctrines existed makes it entirely plausible these believers in Jesus, who were immersed in accordance with John’s teaching, were ignorant of essential aspects of the Christian church.
Regards.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 7:25 am
Scalia, I really think that baptism is not the main thrust of these disciples perfecting their faith. I think it is important but it is secondary here.
Paul said, “Into what then were ye baptized?”
Indicating it was the what or Who they were baptized into that made the difference.
Paul then said, “that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
If they already had belief in Christ why did Paul have to tell them to believe in Jesus ? Perhaps Christ was a future reality for these disciples and not a present one that Paul was trying to convey to them. Whatever the reason, Jesus Christ and faith in him was not the focus of these disciples. They lacked the understanding of what the Messiah had done and didn’t fully grasp salvation by faith.
The scripture then says, “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
It says “when they heard this”, that is, once they understood that faith in Jesus Christ was the focus, then they were baptized in Jesus Name. So baptism is an after thought once their faith was properly placed in the Messiah Jesus Christ.
Knowledge of what John preached was insufficient and the church was there to tell the world about Jesus Christ and that faith should be placed in him. Once that is done, all other things subsequent to that fall into place. Faith in Jesus Christ must come first and be of primary importance, all other things are secondary.
Naz
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 8:13 am
Thanks again, Naz, but you seem to be repeating yourself. Your latest post is essentially a repetition of Post 73; and you do not engage my argument. That’s what I meant when I said you were talking past me. You are either tacitly acknowledging the questions I raise are unanswerable, or you feel that they can be ignored because 19:4 allows us to ignore them. That’s not consistent exegesis.
Your main point, again, is Paul’s explanation of the difference between John’s baptism and Christian baptism.
You ask,
He wasn’t telling them to believe on Jesus. He was explaining that the purpose of John’s baptism was twofold:
a) Repentance.
b) To believe on the one who came after John.
Paul’s words are, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” In other words, it was John who preached belief in Jesus. Remember Apollos knew only the baptism of John, but the previous chapter makes it clear he believed in Jesus. The efforts of Aquila and Priscilla perfected his faith in Christ, they didn’t introduce it to him.
Recall also John’s baptism was for the remission of sins, but since Christ’s blood had not been shed (during John’s ministry), their sins were not actually removed. It was thus incumbent upon them to be baptized into Jesus for the actual removal of their sins and to be full members of the body of Christ (Gal. 3:27).
Upon hearing this explanation, the Ephesian disciples were apparently (there is difference of opinion here — see Gill) rebaptized in Jesus’ name. Who told them to be rebaptized? The narrative apparently leaves that out, but the obvious implication is that Paul preached it (as in Acts 8 with the eunuch). The apparent incompleteness of the narrative necessitates we put together all of the clues a passage gives us, and when viewed comprehensively, they point decidedly in favor of a faith in Christ that needed perfection.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 10:37 am
Scalia, you said,
“He wasn’t telling them to believe on Jesus. He was explaining that the purpose of John’s baptism was twofold:
a) Repentance.
b) To believe on the one who came after John.”
By explaining what the baptism of John was for, doesn’t it follow that he was in fact telling them or reiterating (making clear) that they need to believe in Jesus ? If you say no, I think you are splitting hairs and are in error here. He was taking what they already knew (John’s baptism and message) and showing them and making clear the fulfillment of it in the person of Jesus Christ.
As for Apollos, again I must disagree with you that he knew the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let’s look at it.
Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, KNOWING ONLY THE BAPTISM OF JOHN.
Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the WAY OF GOD MORE PERFECTLY.
Act 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures THAT JESUS WAS THE CHRIST.
According to these verses, Apollos was mighty in the scriptures (Old testament) and fervent in his believe in God. It doesn’t say he was a follower of Christ specifically or that he was preaching Christ. He then was shown the way more perfectly, that is, he was taught about faith in Jesus Christ. How do we know that? Verse 28 make it clear. He convinced the Jews that you need to be baptized in Jesus Name – NO. He convinced the Jews that Jesus was the CHRIST !! Apollos wasn’t preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ until Aquila and Priscilla go a hold of him. Apollos did have a measure of truth because he was mighty in the scriptures and taught the things of the Lord as he knew it. But he only knew John’s baptism which fell short of the gospel as it did with Acts19. The perfection of his faith came by knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah. The scripture is silent but I am sure he was baptized a short time after receiving instruction from Aquila and Priscilla.
Again, like Acts19, it is possible that Apollos had heard about Jesus Christ in some form or another. But the bottom line is that he wasn’t preaching Jesus Christ as the focus of the message which is what disciples of Christ are called to do.
Naz
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 11:37 am
Naz, you write,
No. As I said, John’s baptism couldn’t take sins away because Christ had not been offered as our atonement. Their baptism was thus valid under the old covenant. You seem to find it difficult to comprehend how somebody converted under John’s ministry would have knowledge of Jesus. Please recall:
John 4
1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
John’s ministry continued after the inauguration of the Lord’s ministry until his arrest by Herod. Both the Apostles and John continued to baptize converts, and since John was already preaching about the one whose way he had come to prepare, it is obvious he identified by name the one who he was giving way to. And there is no doubt the ones he had already baptized were familiar with the fact John considered Jesus to be that one. No, it doesn’t follow he was telling them to believe on Jesus for Paul’s very words relate what John told them.
Even though I find your exegesis wanting, you were at least attempting to do something cogent. You’ve gotten off-track here.
First, I don’t merely say, “No.” Paul’s first statement upon meeting these disciples was, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” That makes no sense if they didn’t believe in Jesus. That’s akin to my asking an Orthodox Jew the same thing. His belief is NOT in Jesus, so it would make no sense for me to ask him that.
Second, it is obvious you disagree with me, so you hair-splitting and “error” remark is gratuitous and adds nothing to your argument.
???
When did I ever say Apollos knew the gospel of Christ (if, by that, you mean the fullness of Acts 2:38)? For at least the third time:
Acts 18
25. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
All this tells us is Apollos was a believer in Jesus to some degree. As this passage later reveals, his knowledge was imperfect, but that doesn’t imply he wasn’t a believer in Jesus. I never said he knew, to a necessary degree, the gospel of Christ.
Jesus was certainly the focus of his teaching, else it wouldn’t have said he was an accurate teacher of the things concerning Jesus.
It appears you’re conflating the knowledge and belief in Jesus with the fullness of the gospel. My Jehovah’s Witness friends believe in Jesus, but their knowledge of Him is incomplete and they have not been born again (knowing only the baptism of Rome — at least John’s baptism was temporarily valid). It was no different even while Jesus was preaching!
Mark 9
38. And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
Was this a disciple of John or was it some splinter movement? We do not know, but even during Jesus’ earthly ministry, there were others proclaiming things in His name. By the time of Christ’s death, all or most of John’s converts in all likelihood had heard of Jesus; and there is little doubt a substantial number of them believed in Him to one degree or another. Thus, the references to believers in Jesus under John’s ministry in Acts does not imply they were born again; it merely contradicts the notion they had no faith in Jesus. The context of Acts 18 & 19 clearly demonstrates they believed in Jesus to an imperfect degree.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Scalia, your quote from Acts 18:25 is from the ASV I think.
Acts 18
25. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
From the original Greek, the name Jesus is not in this passage, rather it says Lord.
In the KJV it says,
Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
The reference to Lord is not meant to be understood as Jesus in this context since he was a Jew and his reference point was different from ours. Although I know it is the same Lord we are talking about, to Apollos he was teaching the ways of the Lord as he knew Him which was only up to the baptism of John.
You also said,
“The context of Acts 18 & 19 clearly demonstrates they believed in Jesus to an imperfect degree.”
I will agree with you here with a qualification that both the disciples in Acts19 and Apollos were not disciples of Jesus Christ although they may have known about him. They were not disciples because their faith was not placed on Jesus for salvation. Their imperfect degree is rooted in imperfect faith not in their lack of baptism or anything else. Once they were directed to Jesus Christ then baptism and being spirit-filled followed. Being baptized and filled with the spirit follows after faith not the other way around.
Naz
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Scalia, you said,
“First, I don’t merely say, “No.” Paul’s first statement upon meeting these disciples was, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” That makes no sense if they didn’t believe in Jesus. That’s akin to my asking an Orthodox Jew the same thing. His belief is NOT in Jesus, so it would make no sense for me to ask him that.”
Could it be that Paul just assumed these were disciples of Christ? Obviously from their answer they lacked the understanding of the gospel only knowing John’s baptism. We don’t know what motivated Paul’s question but he for some reason thought these were disciples. Maybe they were in a bible study ? Regardless, we know they were not disciples because you are not a disciple until you are baptized and spirit-filled. And that can’t happen without faith in Christ first. One’s faith is perfected by Jesus Christ and nothing else.
Naz
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Naz,
“Original Greek”? The original copy of Acts is not extant. Several Greek manuscripts read “Jesus” rather than “Lord.” We find a similar situation in Acts 10:48. In the KJV, it reads, “…in the name of the Lord,” whereas other translations read, “in the name of Jesus Christ.” There are Greek manuscripts containing both renderings.
Although it is obvious which rendering I prefer, it is possible somebody, like yourself, will dig in h/er heels and refuse to accept the possibility it was originally “Jesus.” Although I shall shortly consider it from that angle, such a posture tacitly concedes the argument. For if it reads “Jesus,” there is no way one can argue they didn’t believe in Jesus; and remember, I originally replied to Jason’s statement that the Ephesian disciples had “no” faith in Jesus. That has been what I have objected to.
Now, with respect to “Lord” (kurios), as I’ve been arguing, the narrative makes no sense if neither Apollos nor the “Ephesian 12” had faith in Jesus. I’ve elucidated my case above, and until anybody can locate any inferential mistakes I’ve made, I think it is decisive.
I’m glad we’re getting closer in that we can agree they had some kind of belief in Jesus. If I understand you correctly, that is the only point I’m making. Since the Bible makes it clear there were followers of Jesus who were not directly associated with the Apostles, and since it appears obvious many converts of John believed on Jesus to one degree or another, it is neither a textual stretch nor a logical implausibility some of these “believers” are identified in Acts 18 & 19. That they needed to be born again (however that is defined), I have readily affirmed. In fact, that is the traditional Apostolic interpretation. 🙂
Best wishes.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Naz asks,
I don’t think so. One doesn’t make such an assumption without some evidence. There is no scriptural precedent for such an approach. Since it is plausible followers of John’s teaching believed on Jesus (per above), it is more likely Paul came to Ephesus preaching Jesus, and these disciples, upon hearing about Jesus, professed a common belief. Paul, wanting to confirm that affirmation, asks them whether they had received the Holy Ghost. That scenario is much more plausible than making an unwarranted assumption.
Not so. All the Bible tells us is they were “certain disciples.” All the word “disciple” means is “learner,” or “adherent.” Under that definition, anybody who professes a belief in Jesus and adheres to tenets relevant to that belief is a disciple. It doesn’t mean they’re born again. Such is also the case with the word “elder.” It can mean an elderly man, or it can refer to a position in the church. One should not be confused with the other.
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Scalia, I want to look at this verse again.
Acts 18
25. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
How could Apollos teach accurately things concerning Jesus if he only knew the baptism of John? That doesn’t make sense. You can only teach the things of Jesus accurately if you’ve been taught by Jesus or His disciples.
I think “Lord” is the correct rendering in this particular case otherwise it makes no sense, at least to me.
If I am right, and of course I think I am 🙂 , Apollos is lacking at the most fundamental level which has been my argument all along. Again, I don’t know to what degree, but I will still maintain both Apollos and the Ephesian12 were lacking in “Who” they were directing their faith in. As for Paul’s question of whether they received the Holy Ghost, that one is still up for debate but in the end I think we both agree that whatever these people (including Apollos) had was incomplete. My argument is that what they lacked was at a very fundamental level – faith in Christ.
Best Regards,
Naz
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Scalia, take a look at this verse again.
Acts 18
25. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
How could he accurately teach the things of Jesus if he only knew the baptism of John? That doesn’t make sense to me. To teach accurately the things of Jesus, you need to be taught by Jesus or His disciples.
I think “Lord” is the correct rendering in this case.
I think we both agree that regardless of what the Ephesian12 and Apollos had, they were still lacking. I will maintain they were lacking in a fundamental faith in Christ for salvation.
Best Regards,
Naz
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Replying to post 65
Brother Dulle. (getting all formal now… look out!) 😀
They did have faith in Christ, enough faith for Paul to ask them if they had the holy host since they believed. Apparently something they were saying or doing clued Paul in to their faith but something was amiss to cause him to ask for more information. I find it hard to believe a disciple of John not having faith in the one “that takes away the sins of the world”. Their faith wasn’t complete for at least 2 reasons. 1) They were only baptized unto repentance and not in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and 2) They didn’t know about the infilling of God’s Spirit, promised to those who have been baptized in Jesus’ Name..
If the name didn’t matter and it was only faith then the act of baptism was complete they just needed a faith adjustment and not a rebaptism. Paul knew that both were wrong and both needed adjusting.
Romans 10:13-14 speaks to the relationship a preacher has to the hearer. “Calling on the name of the Lord…”, “how shall they hear without a preacher.” Does the faith of the preacher matter? Not to veer off topic but it plays a part. If the preacher is preaching an alternative gospel, like Apollos, then the believer’s faith is off target as well. Or else there isn’t a target and we all are ok. If one can’t hear without a preacher then can they be saved? If the message the preacher preaches is wrong then the foundation the hearer builds on is faulty. As we all know – that won’t stop me from repeating – the bible only knows Baptism in Jesus name. If a preacher baptizes in the titles it is because of the false doctrine of the trinity. The mode of baptism didn’t change until false doctrine infiltrated the church. It is important to press a believer to conform to God’s word in every way.
LikeLike
October 29, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Everyone,
I have been amazed how this old post has been re-invigorated with passionate and fruitful discussion. As of May 3 there were only 11 comments. It was a dead string until 9/29, and since then there have been 72 additional comments!
Since my last post there have been nearly 20 additional comments worth 11 pages of text. While I always feel it my duty to read through every comment, I don’t consider it a duty to respond to every one (as much as I try to). In this case, there are so many aspects of the debate that are being raised, and so many points being made that I would like to respond to, that I am simply overwhelmed. I’ve got a million other things going on right now, including other posts to manage the dialogue on, so I am going to let all of you have the last word. If you want to continue the conversation, by all means do so. I will read your comments, but I can’t continue to respond. I hope you understand.
Let me just finish by saying that there’s no question in my mind that a formula is to be used, and the formula we should use is “in Jesus’ name.” And while I would agree that for the apostles it would be ridiculous to separate the person from their name (and the use of their name), I see no Biblical or rational justification for thinking that the use of Jesus’ name in baptism is what causes the spiritual realities to be conferred on the baptizee.
Have a good weekend everyone!
Jason
LikeLike
October 29, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Jason, I completely understand. There are a lot of threads here and on other sites I would like to reply to, but I simply do not have the time.
Thanks for the vigorous discussion, and all the best to you.
LikeLike
October 29, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Hi, Naz. You write,
Did John the Baptist accurately teach the things concerning Jesus after he said, “Behold, the lamb of God”? We would not say John’s knowledge of Jesus was complete, but what he knew was accurate. Similarly, whatever the followers of John knew, they took with them as they traveled away from Judea (Ephesus being a Greek city in Asia Minor). They may have heard of or witnessed some of His miracles and may have even listened to some of His sermons. They could have moved away from Judea prior to the crucifixion or shortly thereafter. One of the splinter groups the gospels refer to may have also spread what they knew about Jesus wherever they traveled. If they faithfully recounted what they heard and saw, then what they taught could be labeled “accurate.”
Yes, you are correct — we can agree on this.
LikeLike
October 30, 2010 at 7:26 am
Jason
It is a hot button topic, can’t blame us for writing. Over the time I’ve followed you your site has picked up considerable comments. If you’d posted this today you’d have a fire storm debate on your hands. 🙂
Naz,
Acts 22:16 NET
The disciple were baptized unto repentance, we must be baptized unto remission of sins in the Name of the Lord.
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 7:40 am
cs, I’m not sure what your intent was by addressing me with Acts 22:16. Are you concerned for my salvation ? Please clarify, thanks,
Naz
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 7:48 am
Jason, I understand that you can’t answer every post – that would be impossible !
I am glad that we agree in principle on the formula topic for the most part.
Thank you for having this forum where these things can be discussed critically.
Naz
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Naz
The quote of scripture shows that verbally calling on a name was commanded.
Why are you concerned if I am concerned with your salvation?
Please don’t take this as rude, the only two that has critically analyzed this so far is Scalia and Jason. With all due respect, you’ve dodged a ton of questions from Scalia. However, I have enjoyed reading the discussion.
LikeLike
November 2, 2010 at 6:55 am
cs, you have answered my question perfectly, thank you. I’m glad you enjoyed reading the discussion.
Naz
LikeLike
July 30, 2013 at 12:33 am
Jesus never verified what Paul wrote thus indicating any made up stories can be present in the New Testament.
None of the Church Father ever quote Matthew 28:19 or 1John5:7 in their early days, however in the 4th century concept of ‘three gods in oneness’ were added to the original texts of Matthew 28:19 and 1John 5:7 thus showing how twisted were the minds of men inventing lies.
Early Church Fathers believed that there is only One Father the creator, creating all including God Son and Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
April 14, 2016 at 2:41 pm
Just to throw something in this discussion without getting involved in the discussion further. James said in Ja. 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye were called. That involves an oral invocation of the name of Jesus Christ. One cannot be ‘in’ the name of Jesus Christ without an oral invocation being spoken over them in baptism. If Jason believes that a person is saved if baptized repeating Mat 28:19 because they ‘believe’ they are in obedience, Is that obedience to the scripture, or is it that they have listened to the wrong preaching (false doctrine) and obeyed the wrong message. Were they then, baptized in to Christ or did they just get wet? I believe they just got we, and Jason, You are in error.. One cannot be baptized into Jesus Christ without an oral invocation of that name. And, that means they have not been born of water and Spirit as the scriptures say. I don’t believe for a moment that an individual baptized in Trinitarian formula is saved. It does matter what a person says when he baptizes someone and we absolutely can’t put on Christ in any other way that being baptized having an oral and out-loud invocation of the name that is above every name; Jesus! Any other way is ludicrous. The gospel includes the name of Jesus Christ. It does not include any other name, title, etc. If that great name is not spoken over you when you are baptized, please, don’t tell me and everyone reading your opinion about how you believe that being if one is baptized in the Trinitarian mode will suffice if you were sincere and believed you were in obedience to the scripture. That’s not being true to the scripture. It is compromise. Jesus name baptism is being born of water. Being baptized in the titles F/S/HG is false doctrine and absolutely not Putting On the Lord Jesus Christ. How is it even possible to obey Acts 2:38 without an oral invocation of the name? One is not In Jesus if the name was not “called/invoked” over them when they were baptized. I understand this was several years ago, but I thought I would put in my little opinion. We need to be born correctly and not compromise with the message that gives license to any Trinitarian false doctrinal ideas that may open doors for them finding justifications. Everything about the Trinitarian theology leads one to the wrong destination. Much of Bro Jason’s views I agree with, but I must say Scalia’s arguments were more in line with my own view’s. I wonder where Scalia attends Church? I believe he said he is not affiliated with the UPC.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 14, 2016 at 8:22 pm
Doctrine is also called sacrifices and offerings and religious ritualism and that will never save anybody no matter whose name you invoke. That is one of the ludicrous claim of religious fanatics who cannot get over or away from, the dogma doctrine, drilled deep in demonic heads.
Hebrews chapter ten, Hebrews in chapter 10 and look at the 5th and 7th verse.
“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.
That is the role of any man who understands the message of Jesus. Sprinkling water or dunking the body while invoking names is the mere rituals of religion and means absolutely nothing to Jesus or the Father. Anybody who thinks otherwise you do err greatly..
Sacrifices and offerings and showmanship of rituals the Father does not desire.
Matthew 6:1
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
“When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6″But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.…
Matthew 6
The World Is Not a Stage
6 “Be especially careful when you are trying to be good so that you don’t make a performance out of it. It might be good theater, but the God who made you won’t be applauding.
2-4 “When you do something for someone else, don’t call attention to yourself. You’ve seen them in action, I’m sure—‘playactors’ I call them—treating prayer meeting and street corner alike as a stage, acting compassionate as long as someone is watching, playing to the crowds. They get applause, true, but that’s all they get. When you help someone out, don’t think about how it looks. Just do it—quietly and unobtrusively. That is the way your God, who conceived you in love, working behind the scenes, helps you out.
Pray with Simplicity
5 “And when you come before God, don’t turn that into a theatrical production either. All these people making a regular show out of their prayers, hoping for stardom! Do you think God sits in a box seat?
6 “Here’s what I want you to do: Find a quiet, secluded place so you won’t be tempted to role-play before God. Just be there as simply and honestly as you can manage. The focus will shift from you to God, and you will begin to sense his grace.
7-13 “The world is full of so-called prayer warriors who are prayer-ignorant. They’re full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don’t fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need. With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best—
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
LikeLike
April 16, 2016 at 11:20 am
Hi, Lloyd. You are correct both in doctrine and in stating that I am not affiliated with the UPC.
LikeLike
August 3, 2017 at 9:33 am
I think it would be prudent & wise to adhere to the words of Jesus!! He also has told us in the end days; we shall be persecuted for His name’s sake… look what’s happening abroad!!!!
You think about that!!!!
LikeLike
August 3, 2017 at 3:01 pm
John Holland:
The end days have always been happening for some…..
Christian persecution was a dramatic part of early church history. They were the ends days of those persecuted.
Around 34 A.D., one year after the crucifixion of Jesus, Stephen was thrown out of Jerusalem and stoned to death. Approximately 2,000 Christians suffered martyrdom in Jerusalem during this period. About 10 years later, James, the son of Zebedee and the elder brother of John, was killed when Herod Agrippa arrived as governor of Judea. Agrippa detested the Christian sect of Jews, and many early disciples were martyred under his rule, including Timon and Parmenas. Around 54 A.D., Philip, a disciple from Bethsaida, in Galilee, suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into prison, and afterwards crucified. About six years later, Matthew, the tax-collector from Nazareth who wrote his gospel in Hebrew, was preaching in Ethiopia when he suffered martyrdom by the sword. James, the brother of Jesus, administered the early church in Jerusalem and was the author of an Epistle by his name. At age 94, he was beat and stoned, and finally had his brains bashed out with a fuller’s club.
And the list goes on:
Matthias,
Andrew the brother of Peter,
Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria in front of Serapis, their pagan idol.
Peter was condemned to death and crucified at Rome,
Paul’s faith was so dramatic in the face of martyrdom, that the authorities removed him to a private place for execution by the sword,
In about 72 A.D., Jude, who was commonly called Thaddeus, was crucified at Edessa,
Bartholomew was cruelly beaten and then crucified by idolaters there. Thomas, called Didymus, preached the Gospel in Parthia and India, where exciting the rage of the pagan priests, he was martyred by being thrust through with a spear.
Luke is supposed to have been hanged on an olive tree by idolatrous priests in Greece.
Barnabas, of Cyprus, was killed without many known facts in about 73 A.D. Simon, surnamed Zelotes, preached the Gospel in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, where he was crucified in about 74 A.D.
John, the “beloved disciple,” was the brother of James. From Ephesus he was ordered to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.
In summary, “………that many would be persecuted in the end days………” has been going on for centuries; there’s nothing new about what’s going on abroad that was going on in the first century.
Even the persecuted were not immune to persecuting others themselves, it is the nature of the Beast of Belief. People don’t die for a lie but they willingly die for their belief because belief is the sidekick of Ego where the folly of pride rejects wisdom for emotional valor that refuses to exercise discipline and submit to common sense. In other words, those who do not know that living for a cause has a better companion; those who die for a cause, die in vain. Look at the recent death of the the ego of Die and your cause dies with you, live and your cause lives on. Dying for a cause is a religious insanity that caters to the ego and pride by its insanity promotion that there is glory inn death.
It was only a year and a half ago when a video, posted by something called “End Times” News Report, supposedly shows the final moments of Robert LaVoy Finicum a muscle militia man….who even remembers him anymore?
LikeLike
July 12, 2023 at 8:57 am
If we are not to be baptized in Jesus name, then the disciples baptized 3000 people on the Bible the wrong at the day if Pentecost.
So the facts are we have at least 3000 examples of people being baptized in the name of Jesus in the word of God.
And not one single example of anyone being baptized in the father, son, and holy ghost.
This speaks volumes to me.
And the word also said in all that you do in word or deed, do ye in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And yes, give thanks to the father. Son on holy ghost, but DO your deeds.
And SAY your words in JESUS NAME.
And to those that think that means just authority.
I say that all authority lies in the name of Jesus Christ.
Because the word also says that his NAME is above all names.
And there was no other name under heaven that we shall be saved.
That’s enough biblical evidence for me.
LikeLike