Trinitarians typically baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit based on Matthew 28:19. In contrast, Oneness Pentecostals (OPs) typically baptize in the name of Jesus Christ based on Acts and the epistles. Which is the proper baptismal formula?
OPs have been debating this issue for over 100 years. It’s part of the movement’s DNA. Meanwhile, most Trinitarians are oblivious to the debate. Those on both sides who engage in the debate tend to focus only on the Biblical data. The historical data contained in the writings of the post-apostolic church fathers is typically ignored. When it is cited, it is often cherry-picked or misused. As a result, I have written a research paper that seeks to examine both the Biblical and historical data fairly.
When it comes to baptismal formulas, there are four possible options regarding the teaching and practice of the apostolic church:
- There was no baptismal formula used
- The baptismal formula was originally “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”
- The baptismal formula was originally “in the name of Jesus Christ”
- The apostles used both “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” as well as “in the name of Jesus” as baptismal formulas
I examine each of these options from a Biblical and historical perspective (presenting both arguments and counter-arguments for each), rating each option according to the strength of the evidence. No matter what camp you find yourself in, you might be surprised by the evidence and my conclusions. Check out the paper below:
Baptismal Formula Debate – Biblical and Historical Evidence v3 8-8-25
Update on 7/22/25: Various criticisms were leveled against the paper. In light of the criticisms, I have updated the paper to make a number of improvements and clarifications (version 2). If you already read the original paper, and would like to see what I have changed (without having to re-read the entire paper), I am also including a Microsoft Word doc below showing all changes in redline. When you click the link, it will prompt you to download it to your computer.
Baptismal Formula Debate – Biblical and Historical Evidence v3 8-8-25
Thinking to Believe 
March 29, 2025 at 7:52 pm
There is so much error in your paper, it’s hard to know where to begin. I think the only thing I agree with is your “highly likely” conclusion that “in the name of Jesus Christ” is the technically correct biblical formula.
First, I highly suggest that you read Jason Weatherly’s Calling on the Name of Jesus. This book is, by far, the most comprehensive analysis of the subject in English, which leaves no doubt that the use of Jesus’ name as a formula is the biblical mandate. Moreover, he conclusively demonstrates that “in the name of” is NOT an appeal to authority outside the scope of the invocation of a specific name.
Second, we’ve previously discussed Hebrew Name Theology, and your evidence now, as was your evidence then, is very paltry. The name of a party was directly associated with said party’s essence or presence; thus, invoking the name was invoking the person. It doesn’t at all render invocation irrelevant.
Third, you’ve drawn the wrong conclusion from Col. 3:17. As Weatherly states, “The participle ‘giving thanks’ explains the phrase ‘do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.’ Believers do all in the name of Jesus’ through the act of thanking Him verbally. Grammarians call this word usage the participle of means: ‘This participle indicates the means by which the action of a finite verb is accomplished. This means may be physical or mental. This usage is common…The participle of means gives the anticipated or answer to the question How?‘ (quoting Daniel Wallace)…The phrase ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ in Colossians 3:17 does refer to the verbal pronounciation of the name. The context of the passage teaches us that in everything we do, we should verbally pronounce the name of Jesus when giving thanks to God the Father. Believers obey this by saying, ‘Thank you, Jesus!'” And Weatherly goes on to show how this was consistently interpreted thereafter.
Fourth, you rely on history to somehow temper your interpretation of the Bible itself, while ignoring the fact that “heretical” works were destroyed. Indeed, I don’t think you even considered that option in your analysis.
Fifth, you wonder how the formula could turn so quickly immediately after the death of the Apostles if triune baptism were really illegitimate. Did it not even occur to you that their turning went to the Godhead as well? How can a Oneness Pentecostal marvel at the rapidity with which changes regarding baptism could occur, yet fail to question the same rapidity when it comes to the doctrine of the Godhead? If the Oneness of God is truly the teaching of Scripture, then the swift transition to a triune Godhead speaks as little to the truth of the Trinity as it does to the validity of the corresponding change in baptismal practice.
Sixth, you almost completely ignore the salvific nature of water baptism in the Scriptures. And, incidentally, if there is any controversy over the historical formula, there is none over the essentiality of water baptism. Genuine faith must be followed by its corresponding work, else the faith is dead (Jas. 2:26). Note:
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.
Clearly, here, verbal confession is an essential component of one’s salvation. Paul did not say, “if thou shalt believe in thine heart the Lord Jesus and that He was raised from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Verbal confession was necessary. Moreover, just a few verses later, he stated:
“But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?”
Believing the preaching of the gospel entails obedience to the gospel, which is definitely salvific (2 Thes. 1:8). Faith itself is a work (John 6:29) because you’re doing something to obtain something (Heb. 5:9). Since the gospel is Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, obedience to the same is repentance, water baptism in Jesus’ name, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
I’m sorry, Jason, but you’ve veered into false doctrine. The name of Jesus is absolutely essential in water baptism, and baptism is absolutely essential to salvation. How in the world could you even think of tempering biblical teaching with the historical record, especially when it was written by those who so quickly abandoned the biblical teaching of Oneness?
LikeLike
March 30, 2025 at 12:19 am
And I’d like to repost Post 11 of the Is the Singular “Name” of Matthew 28:19 Theologically Important?
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 counterargument 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 a 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 that 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 counterargument 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 counterargument 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.
LikeLike
March 30, 2025 at 12:44 am
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
In the given statement, there are three prepositional phrases—”of the Father,” “of the Son,” and “of the Holy Ghost”—connected by coordinating conjunctions (“and”). These phrases all work together to describe the singular “name” in which baptism is performed.
This construction emphasizes unity among the three entities while maintaining their distinction. Linguistically, the coordinating conjunctions tie the three prepositional phrases to the same “name,” underscoring the theological significance often drawn from this verse in discussions about Trinitarian doctrine.
Jason’s argument that the word “name” can refer to authority in other contexts has no bearing on this passage. He issued a command, and just a few days later they obeyed that command by baptizing in the name of Jesus.
1Sa 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
1Sa 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 swore in the name of the LORD by literally invoking God’s name.
1Ki 21:7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.
1Ki 21:8 So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth.
The nobles were able to identify in whose authority said letter was written precisely because the name of the king was on them.
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 priests of Baal called on the name of Baal by literally invoking his name.
1Sa 25:5 And David sent out ten young men, and David said unto the young men, Get you up to Carmel, and go to Nabal, and greet him in my name:
1Sa 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.
1Sa 25:10 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.
Now, David wasn’t the king, so his servants certainly couldn’t have said, “In the name of the king.” Rather, they addressed Nabal in the name of David. Now, if David’s servant’s didn’t invoke David’s name, how in the world did Nabal know they represented David. Nothing in the text says that he recognized David’s servants as David’s servants. If he did, why would he have to be addressed in David’s name?
Deu 21:5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried;
And how did they bless Israel in the name of the LORD?
Num 6:22 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 6:23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,
Num 6:24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
Num 6:25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
Num 6:26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. Num 6:27 And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.
By literally invoking the name of Jehovah, the priests blessed the people in the name of the LORD and put His name upon them.
Thus, “in the name of” wasn’t merely an expression of authority. It was understood by Israel to be a literal invocation of the name of whatever authority was called upon. The prophets consistently prophesied in the name of the Lord by literally invoking His name (e.g., Thus saith the LORD). Even false prophets did the same. This so-called Hebrew name theology wasn’t divorced from literal invocation. In fact, as the above represents, it was quite the opposite.
LikeLike
March 31, 2025 at 3:22 pm
Scalia,
Well done responding to a lot of the errors Jason made in this post. Hebrew name theology is not mutually exclusive to oral invocation. In fact, we see it often in both Testaments demonstrated as an oral invocation in various contexts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 31, 2025 at 3:58 pm
Jason,
Scalia covered some of the points I would have made. I will leave his comments for you to respond to as there is no point for me duplicating any of his criticisms. With that said, I still would like to address your ending statement on your paper:
“[…] I think my methodology is fair, and I tried to look at things from the perspective of giving equal weight to both the Biblical and historical data, as well as looking at things from the perspective of giving deference to the Biblical data. At the end of the day, you’ll have to choose which approach you think is best to arrive at the right conclusion regarding the original baptismal formula.”
I understand that you are concerned with fairness in methodology. But one has to ask at some point: where is the line between the authority of Scripture and the authority of history?
If one is concerned with the Bible being the infallible final authority, then all other sources of authority are tangential to the Bible. Therefore, church history as an authority is not on the table. Indeed, even the earliest post-apostolic traditions can be deeply wrong in their hermeneutic. They were not divinely inspired so their interpretation regarding what the apostles taught is inherently inferior–no matter how many decades close they were to the apostles.
Per Second Timothy 3:16, I don’t believe we are allowed to posit alternative binding sources for Christian faith and practice. All of that should be aligned with the Word of God. I should note that I remember this is something you do not deny. However, if you uphold the supremacy of the Word of God, then I think you should reconsider your approach in this paper. What matters most is what God says in the Bible, not what churchmen say throughout history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 3, 2025 at 10:34 am
Brother Andrew writes:
Indeed! Even while the Apostles were living, false teaching was prevalent enough to evoke their condemnation. How is it possible in the age of the Apostles that false doctrines like an already-past resurrection and second advent could be promulgated? Nonetheless, it happened, so why in the world would Jason think it odd for false doctrines like triune baptism and proto-Trinitarianism to appear immediately after the apostolic era?
A word of advice to all would-be writers: When your text is complete, please switch hats and assume the role of a critic. You must know your opponent’s position as good or better than he knows it if you’re going to be a proper critic. That way, you can avoid the kind of errors highlighted in this paper.
LikeLike
May 5, 2025 at 5:42 pm
I’ve seen your criticism of the paper and wanted to let you know that I will be responding. It’s just going to take some time because I have other priorities to attend to first.
LikeLike
May 7, 2025 at 4:10 pm
Jason, no problem, but, again, I highly recommend that you read Weatherly’s Calling on the Name of Jesus before you reply. Although I can get quite verbose, as indicated above, writing a book isn’t for comboxes. For what it’s worth, I think this is the best book in English on the subject.
LikeLike
May 10, 2025 at 1:54 pm
So I enjoyed the paper, and its format. I thought there is some good info and things to think about there.
However, I have to agree with Scalia in his criticisms. Especially in regards to points 4 and 5 . The triune formula being original does not follow ( nor is it even implied) from the lack of debate in the post-Apostolic literature. At best it implies indifference to which formula was used by both sides. Lack of recorded opposition to the triune formula is no different than the lack written opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity. Based on Tertullians own admission and what I’ve read from scholars on the issue, Sabellius’ views on the Godhead seemed to be the mainstream and prevalent view of the early church. And yet we don’t have any surviving writings of Sabellius, Noetus , or Praxeas. Nor do we have writings of any other bishop or theologian opposing Tertullians view. All we have are the writings of a very few people- who happened to oppose them.
So at best you could ask , “Where are the triune formula defenders writings defending the triune formula against the Jesus name people?” As I said above, it looks like they didn’t care. They were happy to include both formulas. That can’t be said of the Godhead issue. On that issue, they went on the attack.
You also use the term “heretics” as though it inherently discredits their views . Sabellianism( or so-called modalism) was labelled heresy even though it appears to have been the original and prevalent view among the early church( and had sizeable followings among the Christians well into the 4th and 5th centuries from what I remember) . Using “heretics” as support in your argument is therefore circular reasoning. Not only that, it’s recorded that some Sabellians spoke in tongues, and baptized in “the shorter formula” because of their denial of the trinity. If what we know from the historical record is true, and Sabellius’ views on the Godhead more or less represented the early church’s views, then this what we should expect…and at worst is simply consistent with a Jesus name formula being original.
My last point concerning the historical aspect is this ( and might be the most important) : Most of these historical sources are 100+ years after the lives of the Apostles. Thats a LONG time. Additionally, most of these authors are extremely disconnected from the Apostles in terms of philosophy, worldview, and their theological foundations. They are essentially pagans who adopted a form of Christianity into their worldviews. The more I read pos-apostolic church history, the weirder these guys get. They do some weird things, and have weird customs and beliefs. Totally disconnected from a Jewish based monotheism and from the worldview of the Apostles. This isn’t surprising. We see the same thing today among all the different denominations. I’ve been Apostolic for 28+ years now, and there are some WEIRD customs and beliefs spread out among Oneness Pentecostals.
My last point concerns this last comment :
“While we ought to use the baptismal formula intended by Jesus, we should not think the spiritual
life of the baptizand hangs on the theological acumen of the baptizer.”
I’m a bit dumbfounded by this because this wouldn’t follow from either your preceding “Argument” or “Counter-argument” sections. I wouldn’t think anyone’s spiritual life would hang on the baptizers theological acumen, but I would expect that the baptizer actually knows what the purpose of baptism is and actually performs a Christian baptism. Just as you couldn’t do away with the water and call it a baptism, I would argue you can’t do away with the name of Jesus and call it a Christian baptism. Hand-waving the formula as just words and diverting responsibility from the baptizer and the baptized seems like a deflection to me…
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 24, 2025 at 11:16 pm
And somehow this doesn’t extend to the very notion of a so-called baptismal formula itself, much less of a salvific nature, when we see nothing of the sort in scripture?
I think it utterly regrettable that we’ve reduced baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ/the Lord Jesus” to a precise set of words intended to achieve a desired result by their very utterance that must be spoken by the baptizer as the candidate is lowered into the water in order for the act to be considered efficacious and valid. It’s so ironic how we’re often quick to criticize the “pray the sinner’s prayer to be saved” folks and yet we here we have our own version of the same. At least the sinner’s prayer folks put the onus on the actual sinner to say the “right words.” Apostolics have sinners believing their eternal destiny lies at least partially upon the lips of whoever immersed them when the only two instances in the book of Acts that come closest to revealing what may have been or should be said during the act of baptism (Acts 8:37 and 22:16) have the oral invocation of the name of the Lord upon the lips of the baptismal candidate–and that’s not even taking into consideration the baptismal passage that is Romans 8:9-10 (another irony of ironies).
Furthermore, I submit that the whole of the act of baptism is not at all limited to the recitation of the suggested/mandated wording to be spoken by baptizers as outlined in any given denominational ministerial manuals; as a matter of fact, such manuals typically outline an entire baptismal liturgy for the occasion where it is made explicitly clear at multiple points that it is Christian in nature and centers on the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why do so many Apostolics seemingly believe Jesus Christ is nowhere mentioned, referenced, centered, glorified, etc during baptisms that make use of a Trinitarian “formula”? For that matter, why do so many Apostolics react as though one might as well have said “in the name of the dragon, and of the beast, and of the false prophet” if quoting the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:19 in the act of baptism? I find it very concerning that so many self-proclaimed believers treat a verse of scripture, containing the words of Christ himself no less, as something worse than kryptonite.
The imposition of our modern Western Enlightenment-influenced worldview on a collection of ancient Eastern texts has done us zero favors. Even as one who believes in the validity of water baptism with the use of the oral Christological invocation (by the candidate primarily but also the baptizer), the notion that the recitation of the words of Christ in Matthew 28:19 during the act of baptism as an “official formula” constitutes a virtual act of sacrilege is among the most asinine assertions to have arisen within our ranks. The matter long ceased being one of an honest, diligent pursuit of truth and is nothing more than an exercise in spiritual pride these days. Truth must always be valued above all, including loyalty to doctrinal distinctives.
LikeLike
June 24, 2025 at 11:25 pm
Also this was a rather informative, well-written, objective handling of the issue as defined by the questions it sought to answer. I can appreciate the effort involved which took much time and energy.
LikeLike
June 26, 2025 at 9:56 am
@krazeeboi, I presented my arguments above. Since you do not engage them, I consider your posts non-responsive. The upshot of what you say is that you don’t like what I said. That’s not an argument. If the Bible teaches X, it is irrelevant whether you disagree with X or whether you think it should be Y. On that score, the only legitimate complaint is whether X is a logical contradiction. Absent that, one must go with X if one believes that the Bible is God’s infallible word.
LikeLike
July 22, 2025 at 11:40 pm
Scalia,
Before I address the substance of your criticisms, let me make a few preliminary observations. First, it’s clear that this has gone beyond a friendly disagreement. You don’t merely consider me to be mistaken, but a dangerous adversary, and have taken an adversarial stance against me. At least twice, now, you have accused me of teaching grave errors and false doctrine. And in the context of this paper, why is that? Is it because I conclude that the Biblical data supports baptism in the name of Jesus as the proper formula? No, you would agree with that. Is it because I conclude that baptizing in the name of Jesus does not require an oral invocation of His name? No, because I conclude the opposite. The reason you accuse me of teaching false doctrine is because I don’t think the baptismal formula is what causes the effectiveness of baptism. So while I hold to baptism in Jesus’ name, and practice baptism in Jesus’ name, the fact that I believe those who were baptized using Jesus’ literal words in Matthew 28:19 are not automatically hell-bound makes me a false teacher in your book.
You take a very hardline position, and I don’t think it’s supported Biblically. All you can point to are passages that teach the necessity of baptism, the salvific nature of baptism, and the fact that the Jesus’ name formula was used in baptism. What you will not find is any verse teaching that the baptismal formula causes the effectiveness of baptism (or the water, or full submersion for that matter). You are making an inference that is not there. I can point to a passage that makes it clear faith makes baptism effective, but I won’t go beyond Scripture to make claims it does not make about the water or formula.
Personally, I think you have confused symbols for substance/causes. The water does not cause baptism to be effective, nor does the baptismal formula. That doesn’t make either irrelevant, but we cannot confuse the symbolic elements associated with baptism for what makes baptism effective. You don’t have to agree with me. And you are free to call me a teacher of false doctrine if you want. But I am also free not to be concerned about your personal opinion of me or my theology. If you agreed with me on everything, someone else in the Oneness movement would disagree with me on something else. Disagreement is everywhere in theology, and even within the UPC. If you want to throw out everyone who doesn’t line up exactly with your theology, that’s fine. But I think that’s a bad approach, and no way to form theological alliances or to identify who is a Christian. Those of your perspective remind me of the classic joke by comedian Emo Philips. It begins with two guys striking up a conversation on a bridge:
P1: “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
P2: “I’m a Christian.”
P1: “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
P2: “Protestant.”
P1: “Me, too! What denomination?”
P2: “Baptist.”
P1: “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
P2: “Northern Baptist.”
P1: “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
P2: “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
P1: “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
P2: “Great Lakes Region.”
P1: “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or the Council of 1912?”
P2: “1912.”
P1: “Die, heretic!” (And pushes him off the bridge)
The fact of the matter is that our disagreement is on the internals of baptism, not externals. We both believe that Scripture teaches us to be baptized in Jesus’ name, and we teach others to do so. We both baptize people in the name of Jesus. We simply have different understandings of what is causing that baptism to be effective. If you want to push me off the bridge for that, so be it. I’m really not concerned. I gave up trying to get the whole world to agree with me years ago. I just want to be faithful to Scripture. That is always a work in progress, though, as none of us have a perfect understanding of theology. It would be great if we had the Apostle Paul alive today to say who is right and who is wrong, but we don’t. Instead, we are all left to do our best to figure things out. And that’s why theological debate like this is helpful.
Second, you have written a ton (and as things often go, my response will be way longer than your initial objections – what I call “word count escalation”). It’s too much to respond do. That’s part of the reason I put this off for so long. It was just overwhelming. To address this much, I needed a big block of time to focus, and as you know, time is what I lack most. I did, however, make a commitment to myself not to post any more blogs until I responded to you (with the exception of posts announcing new podcast series). I finally got some time to respond. I apologize for the long delay. I will not be able to respond to every detail of what you’ve written. Like I said, it’s just too much. I’m going to focus on the more important elements. Also, I’ll let you know in advance that it’s highly unlikely that I’ll respond to any counter-responses you will certainly offer. I just don’t have the time to engage in endless debates with people.
LikeLike
July 22, 2025 at 11:42 pm
Scalia,
You spent a lot of time focusing on the Hebrew Name Theology (HNT) aspect of my paper. I’m not sure why given the fact that I did not find the argument persuasive that HNT means there is no baptismal formula (silent baptism). I explicitly argued against it in my counter-argument section and rated it as “3-possible” from a Biblical perspective and “5-very unlikely” from a historical perspective. Perhaps you think I still rated the Biblical arguments for the no-formula view too high. Or, perhaps you think my counter-argument could have been stronger. I’m open to re-evaluating my ratings and improving the arguments, but it seems to me you are largely making a big deal about something that I ultimately rejected in the paper.
When it comes to HNT, there are two distinct issues: (1) what it means to do something “in the name of”; (2) whether doing something “in the name of” requires a verbal invocation of the person’s name. I think we can both agree that in ANE thought, a person’s name represents the person himself, his presence, his power, his authority, his ownership, etc. So when we read about doing something “in the name of,” it’s going to involve one or more of those ideas. The real question is whether doing something “in the name of” always requires a verbal invocation of the person’s name. You (and Weatherly, apparently) take the position that it does. I don’t, but neither do I take the extreme opposite position that it never involves a verbal invocation of the name. I would argue that it typically involves an oral invocation of the name, but not always. Frankly, I don’t see why it matters anyway. One does not need to establish that “in the name of” ALWAYS REQUIRES a verbal invocation of the name in order to establish that baptism requires a verbal invocation of the name. One simply needs to establish that in the case of baptism, one cannot baptize in the name of Jesus without actually invoking the name of Jesus.
As for Weatherly, I have not read his book (although I did listen to a three hour interview with him where he discusses the thesis of his book, so I have a basic grasp of his view and some of his strongest evidence), so I cannot adequately assess your claim that “he conclusively demonstrates that ‘in the name of’ is NOT an appeal to authority outside the scope of the invocation of a specific name.” It seems difficult for me to believe that he could pull that off, however, because there seem to be several clear examples where “in the name of” does not presuppose an oral invocation of the person’s name, and in some cases could not involve an oral invocation of the person’s name.
First, when the Jewish leadership prohibited the apostles from speaking and teaching “in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18), they were not prohibiting the apostles from uttering the name of Jesus (a common name in Israel), but rather from teaching ABOUT Jesus.
Second, Jesus told us to pray in His name, and yet you won’t find a single post-ascension prayer in the NT that contains the phrase, “in the name of Jesus” or invokes His name as the authority for the prayer. That seems like clear evidence to me that “in the name of” does not always presuppose an oral invocation of the person’s name.
Third, YHWH said that He has “chosen him [presumably Aaron given the singular, despite Aaron not being named in the immediate context] out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for all time” (Dt 18:5). Where does the text say that every time a priest began a day of ministry in the Tabernacle that he orally invoked the name of YHWH? It seems clear to me that the point is simply that God has chosen Aaron and invested him with the authority to do the priestly duties. Aaron is not doing so in his own authority, but in the authority of YHWH.
Fourth, when Elijah repaired the altar of YHWH during his Carmel showdown with the prophets of Baal, it is said that “with the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord” (1 Kings 18:32). Clearly, the meaning is that Elijah built it for YHWH. It belongs to YHWH. It’s for YHWH’s service. We don’t read of Elijah pronouncing the name of YHWH while building it. Granted, one could counter that Elijah would have consecrated the altar by pronouncing the name of YHWH over it after it was built. Possibly, but the text never makes that claim, so one would be arguing from silence. The only time we see Elijah calling on the name of YHWH was when he addressed Him personally in a prayer (vs. 36-37). I see no connection between his prayer and the building of the altar, such that his prayer should be interpreted as the verbal invocation involved in building the altar (which was already complete prior to the prayer).
Fifth, Isaiah said, “Who among you fears the LORD and obeys the voice of his servant? Let him who walks in darkness and has no light trust in the name of the LORD and rely on his God” (Is 50:10). Is Isaiah asking people to say the name of YHWH to indicate they trust Him? No. He’s simply telling them to trust the person of YHWH.
Sixth, Micah said, “For all the peoples walk each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever” (Mic 4:5). Is Micah talking about pronouncing the name of YHWH? No. He’s talking about living according to the commands of YHWH.
While I would agree that “in the name of” TYPICALLY involves a verbal invocation of the person’s name, I don’t see how one could argue that it ALWAYS involves a verbal invocation of the person’s name. But again, who cares since I’m not arguing for silent baptism! Do you really think it’s worth going to war over “typically” vs. “always” when everyone in this discussion agrees that to be baptized in Jesus’ name means to have His name invoked during baptism?
As for Col 3:17, you (and Weatherly, and apparently Daniel Wallace, and probably others) dispute my interpretation of this verse. It should be noted that I expound on this verse in the section where I argue for the no-formula view as if I were an advocate of that view. They would appeal to that verse and understand it in the fashion I laid out in the paper. Having said that, what I wrote regarding this verse also reflects my own interpretation of the verse. But even if your interpretation of Col 3:17 is right and mine is wrong, the case for doing something “in the name of” not requiring a verbal invocation of the person’s name does not stand or fall on Col 3:17, so I see no need to haggle over it in the paper. Other verses demonstrate the same point.
I’ve heard Weatherly argue for understanding Col 3:17 in light of Eph 5:20. It’s true that there are striking parallels between the two epistles, and even the flow of thought in places. Indeed, in both epistles, just prior to the passages in question, Paul is talking about addressing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, giving thanks to God (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). Ephesians is very clear that what we are to do in the name of Jesus is give thanks God. Weatherly argues that this is also the point of Col 3:17. Perhaps, but I’m not convinced. Just because there are parallels between the two epistles does not require that Paul make the exact same point in both, such that we should see Eph 5:20 as the interpretive control for Col 3:17. In Col 3:17, Paul says, “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” My knowledge of Greek syntax is too faded to be of much help to me these days, but just looking at the English, it seems to me that “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is connected to “whatever you do.” Giving thanks is a separate, even if related action.
I have to ask where the Wallace quote comes from. I dusted off my Greek syntax work by Wallace and (according to the Scripture index) he does not address Col 3:17 in his book. I also looked for it on the web and could not find that quote. Perhaps it is from Weatherly’s book, recording some personal correspondence between Weatherly and Wallace. Wallace is Mr. Greek Syntax, so if he said that, obviously I would give great weight to his opinion. However, if there’s one thing I remember from Greek syntax, it’s that assigning how a particular Greek form is functioning in a context can be quite subjective. And participles are notoriously difficult to interpret. The context matters much more than the form for interpretation. No Greek form can tell you whether a verbal invocation is involved. Only the context can. And it’s the context that leads me to believe that Paul is not referring to a verbal invocation. Even if it can be successfully argued that Paul is referring specifically to “spiritual” activities rather than all activities, that’s still a lot of activities each day. I don’t think Paul’s point is that we are to say “in the name of Jesus” before each one, or even “thank you God through Jesus Christ” before each one. Paul’s point is simply that we should say and do everything in the authority of and in accordance with the will of Jesus. I’m open to further evidence that would change my interpretation, but it wouldn’t change my position that “in the name of” does not always require a verbal invocation of the person’s name because the case for that POV does not rest on Col 3:17 alone.
You write, “Fourth, you rely on history to somehow temper your interpretation of the Bible itself, while ignoring the fact that ‘heretical’ works were destroyed. Indeed, I don’t think you even considered that option in your analysis.” First, I’m not trying to “temper” anything. But yes, the historical data does, in fact, temper the strength of my Biblical analysis because we would expect that if the NT teaches that baptism is to be performed by invoking the name of Jesus, we would find most people doing so in the post-apostolic period. And yet, that is not what we find.
Second, do you really believe that there were all sorts of early writings that indicated people were baptizing in the name of Jesus, but later Christians destroyed all of them because they didn’t agree with their theology? Do you think there may have been writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. that mentioned baptism in the name of Jesus, but were destroyed by later Christians because they objected to their baptismal formula? What’s your evidence for this grand conspiracy? How likely is it that later Christians would destroy the works of famous and respected church leaders just because they disagreed with some point of theology in some of their writings? If that were the case, we shouldn’t have any of Origen’s writings.
Maybe you think it wasn’t these church fathers who were writing about baptism in Jesus’ name, but laymen. That’s unlikely. It was largely the church leaders/bishops who were writing about theology back then, not laymen. Or perhaps you think there were alternative Christian movements that separated from Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. in the early second century over the baptismal formula issue or Godhead issue, and they wrote works defending baptism in Jesus’ name that were later destroyed by the “orthodox.” Again, where is your evidence for that? If your response to the historical data relies on saying that people wrote about baptism in Jesus’ name, but their works were destroyed, leaving no evidence of them, then your response is doomed from the start.
I should also ask why these splinter groups felt the need to separate themselves from these church leaders unless these late first- and early second-century church leaders had all abandoned baptism in the name of Jesus in favor of in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit? But how could they have all so quickly and thoroughly abandoned the apostolic practice that these groups felt the need to separate from them? How could they go off the rails so quickly and so thoroughly on an issue as important as baptism?
You attempt to explain this by pointing to how the church so quickly veered away from the truth regarding the Godhead. And in a comment to Andrew, you wrote: “Even while the Apostles were living, false teaching was prevalent enough to evoke their condemnation. How is it possible in the age of the Apostles that false doctrines like an already-past resurrection and second advent could be promulgated? Nonetheless, it happened, so why in the world would Jason think it odd for false doctrines like triune baptism and proto-Trinitarianism to appear immediately after the apostolic era?”
It’s not as if I think the church preserved all NT teachings intact for centuries before they began to evolve them. I recognize that false doctrine existed even in the days of the apostles, and that some NT teachings began to evolve right away in the post-apostolic age. I think this should be considered as part of an explanation for why the Biblical data and historical data are incongruent. But three things should be noted. First, the process of doctrinal drift typically involved disputation. For example, in the NT the apostles rebuked such people. The church fathers argued about all manner of things.
Second, not all doctrines were evolving at the same time or at the same rate. Some bishops were defending the apostolic teaching while others were evolving away from it.
Third, the process of evolution typically took centuries, not decades. The doctrine of the Trinity does not just pop into existence in the early second century. Different church leaders contributed different aspects to the idea, and it evolved over time. It wasn’t until 381 that the Trinitarian doctrine was fully fleshed out. And we can point to early church fathers who are still explaining the Godhead and the Father-Son relationship in Oneness terms in the first through third centuries (indeed, Bernard does just that in his book on the development of the Trinity). That is not what we see in regards to the baptismal formula. We don’t see some church leaders advocating for baptism INJC and some INFSHS, or all advocating for baptism INJC in the second century and then a split on the issue in the third century. Per the historical data, everything points to all of the church fathers baptizing INFSHS from the second century onward (although, admittedly, the second century evidence does not speak for all geographical regions of the church, so it’s possible that some areas were baptizing INJC that we just don’t have the evidence for). That would mean it didn’t take centuries for this complete change in apostolic practice, but decades (assuming that, indeed, the apostolic practice was to baptize INJC).
You accuse me of “almost completely ignor[ing] the salvific nature of water baptism in the Scriptures.” That wasn’t what the paper was about. This wasn’t a paper about the doctrine of baptism in general, but a paper about the baptismal formula. I didn’t discuss whether baptism is necessary for salvation, just like I didn’t discuss the proper mode of baptism (sprinkle or dunk) and many other questioned related to baptism. You can’t fault me for not addressing an issue the paper was not intended to address. I did, however, address the question of whether the efficaciousness of baptism depends on the baptismal formula, and argued it does not. Obviously, you disagree. My point is that I did address the question of salvation, at least in the particular area of the function of the baptismal formula.
LikeLike
July 22, 2025 at 11:43 pm
Scalia,
In reference to Matthew 28:19 and your resurrection of that old post, I will be more brief. First, my main point is that it is not grammatically incorrect to use the singular “name” followed by three appellations, so it’s not as if the apostles would have immediately recognized from the grammar of Jesus’ command that He meant something deeper by His words – that He didn’t want them to literally say INFSHS, but wanted them to identify a singular name to baptize in. Granted, when the apostles began to baptize, they did not repeat Jesus’ words but baptized INJC, so there was something that Jesus said that made them understand that He did not mean for them to repeat INFSHS. In the article you reference, I argued that it was probably Jesus’ emphasis on Himself: All authority was given to Him, and they were to teach everyone about Jesus’ commands. Furthermore, they understood that the purpose of baptism is to identify one with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:1-4). It would only make sense, then, to baptize someone in the name of Jesus because it was Jesus alone who died, was buried, and rose again from the dead. I don’t claim to know precisely what it was that Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 that caused the disciples to understand that Jesus did not mean for them to repeat His words verbatim. Perhaps the singular “name” had something to do with it, but I don’t think it was any supposed grammatical contradiction between the singular “name” and it being followed by three appellations.
Second, when I say God does not have a name, I’m referring to His eternal state. God had no name in eternity, before creation. He chose a name for Himself after creation for the purpose of disclosing His aspects of His identity and nature to human beings. He identified Himself as YHWH, so we can rightly say that God’s name is YHWH given those qualifications.
Third, my point about titles vs. names is that in the NT, God is never identified by His OT name YHWH. He is called God (1,236 times), Father (254 times), and Lord (168 times). While none of those are proper names, they function as names. I don’t think the apostles would be thinking to themselves, “Father is not a proper name, but just a title for YHWH; therefore, Jesus can’t mean that we should say ‘Father’ when we baptize people.” Even Isaiah 9:6 calls a “name” we would refer to as four “titles” for the Messiah: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
“Son” is identified as a name in the homily to the Hebrews: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son… 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’? Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’?” (Hebrews 1:1-2,4-5) According to the author, the Son has inherited a name more excellent than the angels, but he does not go on to identify His name as Jesus. Instead, he quotes two OT texts which identify His name as “Son.” That’s why I think this whole “titles vs. names” distinction that OPs make is not rooted in Scripture, but is a modern distinction we are making that would not have been recognized by the Biblical authors.
Fourth, I reject the idea that the name of the Father is Jesus and the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus. There are no texts to support this idea, and the ones that are appealed to are clearly being misinterpreted and misused.
In regards to your third post, you just seem to be providing more examples where “in the name of” requires a verbal or written invocation of the person’s name. I’ve already addressed this, so I’ll just reiterate that the question isn’t whether “in the name of” refers to a person’s authority or requires a verbal invocation of the person’s name. That’s a false dichotomy. It can require a verbal invocation of the person’s name, but refer to their authority (or ownership, or person, etc.).
LikeLike
July 22, 2025 at 11:43 pm
Andrew,
Please see my comments to Scalia in reference to Hebrew Name Theology (HNT). Doing something “in the name of” always carries a meaning with it. It refers to or signifies the person himself, his presence, his power, his authority, his ownership, etc. While “in the name of” always has a meaning, it does not always necessitate the verbal invocation of the person’s name. I provided Biblical examples in the paper, and more Biblical examples in my response to Scalia in support of that position. I think it normally involves the verbal invocation of the person’s name, so I agree with you that HNT is not mutually exclusive to the oral invocation of a person’s name. I never claimed otherwise. Even when I argued for the no-formula view in the paper (doing so as if I embraced that view), I didn’t argue that HNT excludes an oral invocation of the person’s name, but rather that it does not always require it. I think “in the name of” normally implies an oral invocation of the person’s name. In the case of baptism, I clearly agree that the two go together. Some sort of oral invocation (formula) is required.
You asked, “Where is the line between the authority of Scripture and the authority of history?” I never claimed that history is an authority, yet alone an authority on par with Scripture. Scripture is the ultimate authority. History is not an authority at all. What it is is a source of evidence, and we cannot ignore a source of evidence as important as the historical record. It is a record of what people believed, taught, and practiced. If our interpretation of Scripture is correct, and INJC is the baptismal formula used by the apostolic church, then we would fully expect to see that practice continuing in many parts of the post-apostolic church well into the second and third centuries. That doesn’t mean it could not become perverted or changed eventually, but we wouldn’t expect the practice to virtually vanish in the second century. As some church leaders began to change the apostolic practice in favor of the INFSHS formula, we would expect to find fierce debates between church leaders as to the proper baptismal formula (given how important the rite of baptism was to the early church). If, when we went to the historical record, we saw that this was the case, you and I both know that Apostolics would point to that as supporting evidence in favor of our interpretation of Scripture.
But that’s not what we see when we go to the historical record. We don’t see any church leaders/bishops practicing baptism INJC. All of the evidence from the second century onward points to them baptizing INFSHS. We don’t even see any debate over the baptismal formula until the 3rd century, and the debate was about whether heretics who baptized in Jesus’ name needed to be rebaptized when they came to embrace orthodoxy (which indicates that some baptized in Jesus’ name, but they were small in number compared to those represented by the churches of the bishops). Some bishops argued that they did need to be rebaptized (some would argue this way even if they had been baptized INFSHS because they saw baptism performed by heretics as invalid, or because the heretics did not believe in the Trinity when they were baptized), while some argued they did not. But even the bishops who argued that their baptism was valid did not themselves baptize people INJC. They used and preferred the triune formula, but merely thought it was acceptable to use the Jesus’ name formula.
Because the historical evidence does not favor our Biblical interpretation, we tend to ignore or denigrate the historical evidence. That’s precisely what I am trying not to do. I am calling attention to the historical evidence because it requires an explanation. We need to explain why, if our Biblical interpretation is correct, the church leaders almost immediately and universally changed the practice. I did not attempt to offer such an explanation in my original paper, but in the updated version I just posted, I have proposed a few reasons that people can chew on. Apostolics need to tackle this head-on. We can’t just appeal to history when it supports our view and ignore it when it doesn’t. We surely can’t ignore it in the name of history having less authority than Scripture. History is evidence, and that evidence must be addressed.
Perhaps you thought that because one of the ways I assessed the data was by giving equal weight to both the Bible and history, that I think both carry the same weight. I don’t. I just presented it as an option for those who do. The reason I have the second way of assessing the data (giving more weight to the Biblical data) is because I think that is the best approach (and I updated the paper to make it clearer that this is my favored approach). But even in the original version I made that clear in footnote #69 (footnote #73 in the revised version of the paper) where I addressed why I did not provide a third way of assessing the data, namely one in which history carries more weight than Scripture: “A third way of averaging the data would be to give deference to the historical data over the Biblical data. I reject this approach because of my commitment to sola Scriptura. The Bible is our ultimate authority, not history. There is no circumstance in which we should give more deference to the thoughts, opinions, and practices of the post-apostolic church than we give to the Biblical data. While I think history can elucidate the Biblical data, it is not an authority equal to, or over Scripture.”
LikeLike
July 22, 2025 at 11:44 pm
Apollos21,
I never said the lack of debate in the post-apostolic era about the baptismal formula means the triune formula is original. One could argue that way, but obviously I don’t. I conclude that the Biblical support for the INJC formula is very high while the historical evidence is very low, and that such a discrepancy between these different domains of evidence requires an explanation.
And I don’t think it implies indifference on the issue. Baptism was one of the most important rites in the early church. They weren’t indifferent to any aspect of the baptismal ceremony, so why think they would be indifferent to the one aspect that would have been rooted in apostolic teaching, namely the baptismal formula? That they weren’t indifferent to it is also evidenced by the fact that some church fathers wrote about the fact that some people baptized INJC and they debated the validity of such baptism.
You make a good point about not having any writings from Oneness advocates despite the fact that their opponents give indications that the majority of Christians (or at least the Christians in their geographical region) held to a Oneness-like view. History is often written by the winners. That said, when the earliest bishops and church leaders were writing about God and Jesus, their statements reflect a Oneness understanding. It’s not as if immediately following the death of the apostles, no church leader held to a Oneness view. Rather, it’s that the church leaders quickly began to drift toward a Trinitarian-like understanding of God. But we still have a record of some of them speaking in Oneness terms. The same cannot be said for baptism. No extant writings show that any bishop or church leader in the orthodox/institutional church taught baptism in Jesus’ name. They all taught baptism INFSHS (even if some found baptism INJC to be acceptable as practiced by groups they deemed heretical).
As for the identity of the “heretics,” you raise a good point. In fact, the number one follow-up research on my list is to try to identify which groups they had in mind when these various church fathers spoke of “heretics.” As noted in the paper, however, Cyprian identified some of them by name, and one of them was the Patripassians – some form of Oneness believers (although I don’t know how much we can know historically about what else they believed). It would make sense that they would baptize INJC. But to be clear, I didn’t make any argument regarding the heretics in my paper. I did not say that I thought the groups they considered heretical were truly heretical (the mention of the Patripassians is a case in point). I merely noted that when the church fathers spoke of people baptizing INJC, it was always associated with splinter, heretical groups rather than the churches led by the bishops and those under them.
You said that most of these sources are 100+ years after the apostles, and you consider that to be a long time. In terms of historical reporting, it’s actually amazing that we have sources that early. That said, I do understand your point that a lot can change in 100 years. There is some truth to that, but do remember that in the earliest phase of the post-apostolic church, apostolic succession was considered so important because it was supposed to help guarantee that what was being taught by the church leaders of the day was the same thing that was taught by the apostles. They were keen to preserve what they had been taught, while at the same time introducing new traditions and ideas which eventually muddled the apostolic teaching. Having said that, I agree with you that many of the leaders were disconnected from the apostles in terms of their philosophical assumptions and background. They were mostly Gentiles, not Jewish. And I think that is one reason for them going off the rails, particularly in their doctrine of God and Jesus. I can’t say how much it would have affected their doctrine of baptism, but I don’t see how it would have impacted that as much. It’s not as theological or philosophical in nature as the doctrine of God and Christ.
LikeLike
July 22, 2025 at 11:45 pm
Everyone,
In light of the criticisms and feedback, I have updated the paper to add clarifications, bolster the arguments, and reflect some changes in my thought since publication. Major changes include:
In addition to these changes, I made editorial changes throughout. For the sake of those who have already read the original paper, and would like to see what I have changed without having to re-read the entirely of the revised version and do a side-by-side comparison with the original, I have also posted the redlined Word document so you can easily identify what has changed.
LikeLike
July 23, 2025 at 11:13 pm
Thank you for your lengthy reply. I appreciate the time investment, though I must point out that despite the verbosity, your response fails to address the core issue head-on: the essential role of Jesus’ name in baptism, not merely in practice, but in efficacy.
Let me clarify a few things.
You’ve begun your reply by shifting the tone toward the personal, as though this were a matter of temperament or tolerance rather than theology. But the gravity of my charge—that your teaching is false—is not because you “don’t agree with me.” It is because you reject what Scripture teaches about the name of Jesus in relation to salvation. When Peter said, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), he was not engaging in wordplay or optional semantics. This wasn’t a matter of “internals versus externals.” He was stating a spiritual axiom.
That name is the exclusive means of salvation because it is the very identity of the saving God. It is not a magical token, nor a merely symbolic label. It is the revealed identity of the Redeemer, and invoking it in baptism is no more optional than invoking it in prayer, confession, or exorcism (Acts 3:6; 4:10; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). To trivialize that name in the act of baptism—which is explicitly for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)—is to undermine both the command of Christ and the salvific significance of His name.
You argue that I am confusing “symbols for substance,” but in fact, your position does just that. You claim baptism is effective because of faith alone, and that the formula used is secondary or even non-essential. Yet you continue to practice the Jesus Name formula, as if that practice has significance. But here lies the contradiction: If the invocation is non-essential, then why invoke it at all? And if it is essential, then how can you dismiss those who fail to do so as nonetheless saved?
You attempt to cast water, submersion, and the name-formula as “symbolic,” but Scripture never treats them as such. Romans 6:3–4 teaches that baptism unites the believer with Christ’s death and resurrection. That is no mere symbol—it is participation. And that participation is in the name of Jesus, or it is not Christian baptism at all. Faith does not hover above the sacrament, imbuing it with meaning at will. Rather, it enters into obedience—and part of that obedience is calling on His name (Acts 22:16).
You argue that I make an inference Scripture doesn’t support. But it is you who are making unwarranted inferences. You infer that faith is self-sufficient, despite every biblical instance of conversion including both baptism and the name of Jesus. You cite no verse where baptism without Jesus’ name is commended, accepted, or practiced. You cite no instance where faith apart from the name is salvific in the New Covenant. Your position is built on the absence of evidence, and then padded with rhetoric about flexibility and personal perspective.
But the apostles didn’t share your flexibility. They commanded Jesus’ name to be invoked. And they treated any departure from that standard not merely as another perspective but as disobedience (Acts 10:48; Gal. 1:8–9). If the inspired record uniformly presents Jesus’ name baptism as the apostolic norm—and if the name is, in fact, the revealed name of the Father, Son, and Spirit—then deviation is not just misguided; it is unacceptable.
You invoke Emo Philips’ joke as if this were a matter of minor denominational squabbling. But with respect: this isn’t a debate about the date of the Council of Northern Conservative Baptists. This is about whether a person is in Christ or not. The name of Jesus is not a peripheral issue. It is central to the gospel itself. “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:13). If you reject that as a literal invocation in the act of salvation—particularly baptism—then you have gutted the clear apostolic meaning.
You say you’re not concerned with my opinion of your theology. Fair enough. But your lack of concern doesn’t refute the charge. When the Apostle Paul faced those preaching a gospel without the cross or the resurrection, he didn’t opt for tolerance or alliance-building. He said, “Let them be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). That wasn’t sectarian; it was salvific. I am saying nothing more—and nothing less.
You say that if I don’t disagree with you on this, I’ll disagree with you on something else. That may be true. But that is irrelevant. This disagreement is not “just another doctrinal wrinkle.” It is about whether or not people are being truly born of water and Spirit. If the name of Jesus is not invoked in baptism, then it is not the birth of water. It is not entrance into the covenant. It is not remission of sins. And it is not salvation.
LikeLike
July 23, 2025 at 11:30 pm
You frame the debate over Hebrew Name Theology (HNT) as though it were tangential to your position, stating that you rated it “3-possible” biblically and “5-very unlikely” historically. But this is misleading. The reason HNT was emphasized in my response is precisely because your own argument rests on undermining the necessity of vocal invocation in baptism. If you now concede that “in the name of” typically involves literal invocation, and that baptism is one such case, then your rhetorical emphasis on “not always” becomes a red herring. The debate is not about every possible use of the phrase across the corpus of Scripture. It is about the apostolic practice and theological necessity of invoking Jesus’ name in the salvific act of baptism. And on that point, the consistent biblical data—and your own practice—support our position, not yours.
You also attempt to deflect from Weatherly’s conclusions by implying his thesis is too strong to be persuasive. But in so doing, you sidestep the relevant examples from Scripture where invocation is clearly verbal and integral to covenantal acts. I provided multiple such examples—including blessings, curses, oaths, and priestly functions—which demonstrate a consistent Jewish understanding that invoking the name meant saying it. You present a series of examples—Acts 4:18, John 14:13–14, Deut. 18:5, 1 Kings 18:32, Isaiah 50:10, and Micah 4:5—to support the idea that doing something “in the name of” does not always entail verbal invocation. But your use of these texts is problematic—not only because they are all removed from baptismal context, but because each constitutes, at best, an argument from silence in opposition to Scripture’s explicit examples.
Let’s examine this more carefully:
In every one of these texts, the absence of a quoted verbal invocation does not mean it didn’t happen. This is a textbook example of building a case from omission. You are using ambiguous texts to dilute unambiguous apostolic precedent. But the practice of the apostles—explicitly recorded—is what binds the Church. And they always baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, not once by silent intention or Trinitarian title.
You dispute Weatherly’s exegesis of Col. 3:17 by casting doubt on the grammatical linkage between the participle (“giving thanks”) and the main clause. But you admit your Greek is rusty, and your interpretation cannot explain why Paul explicitly pairs “giving thanks” with “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Your reading renders the phrase superfluous. Wallace is cited (via Weatherly) because his treatment of participles of means does apply: verbal thanksgiving is the means of doing something in Jesus’ name.
But even if we set aside Wallace, your reading still fails to explain why the NT consistently portrays believers invoking Jesus’ name in key liturgical and spiritual acts—healing (Acts 3:6), exorcism (Acts 16:18), baptism (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5), confession (Rom. 10:9), and even justification (1 Cor. 6:11). The consistent pattern is one of verbal invocation—not abstract reference.
You accuse me of confusing “symbol for substance,” but that accusation backfires. If, as you say, baptism is salvific but the invocation of Jesus’ name is non-essential, then the name of Jesus becomes a non-operative symbol. But Scripture does not allow that:
You say that it is faith that makes baptism effective. I agree—but faith must obey. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). That includes believing the gospel and obeying its terms. The gospel includes the command to be baptized in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). This is no small matter—it is the revealed response to God’s redemptive work.
You express incredulity at the possibility that early writings affirming Jesus’ name baptism were destroyed or suppressed. But this is neither conspiratorial nor implausible. Several considerations render it historically plausible:
Your reasoning assumes a false dichotomy: either the whole early church uniformly followed Jesus’ name baptism and then somehow instantly stopped, or else they never practiced it that way. But the actual evidence suggests both competing practices and regional divergence. You cannot extrapolate universal practice from partial and theologically biased records.
You say your paper didn’t aim to address the doctrine of salvation—just the formula. But your conclusion does touch salvation when you say Jesus’ name is not essential. This is not a peripheral matter. The name of Jesus is not a liturgical decoration; it is the means by which God mediates grace. You can no more separate the name from baptism than you can separate blood from atonement.
You claim this is a debate about “typical vs. always.” But it’s not. It is a debate about apostolic obedience vs. theological rationalization. The question is not what “in the name of” can mean. The question is: What did the apostles do, and what did they command others to do, in the act of Christian initiation?
There is no record of any baptism in Scripture being performed without the invocation of the name of Jesus. None. Every biblical record shows the name invoked. And Scripture clearly ties that invocation to remission of sins (Acts 2:38), washing (Acts 22:16), and justification (1 Cor. 6:11).
You argue that we don’t need to be so dogmatic. But I ask: would you take such a relaxed view if someone taught that communion need not involve bread and wine (or grape juice)? How about baptism in Kook-Aid? Or that we can be saved without repentance? Or that the resurrection is optional? No. Why then should we be casual about the one name under heaven whereby we must be saved?
I urge you to reconsider not only the historical pattern, but the spiritual cost of weakening the Apostolic command. The blood of Christ is applied in baptism (Rom. 6:3–4)—and that baptism must be done in His name, or it is not His baptism.
LikeLike
July 23, 2025 at 11:47 pm
You affirm that the apostles did not repeat Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:19 and instead baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, but you claim the phrase “the name…of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” presents no grammatical tension. You miss the point. The issue is not that such grammar is ungrammatical—it’s that its theological function within the command of Christ, coupled with apostolic non-repetition, demands interpretive resolution. The grammar alone may allow for a collective or titular reading, but the apostolic response—uniform, immediate, and Spirit-led—reveals their interpretation: that “the name” referred to a singular, personal name, namely Jesus.
You grant that something Jesus said in that command prompted the apostles to baptize in Jesus’ name. That something is precisely the singularity of “name.” The force of that singular is not grammatical awkwardness but semantic exclusivity. Had Jesus intended the apostles to invoke “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” as the baptismal invocation, then the apostles universally failed to obey Him—something no serious reader of Acts can believe. The singular “name” does not need to produce a syntactic contradiction to convey theological unity and to point to a singular referent. That’s why the earliest Christians understood the name to be Jesus—not three titles.
You state that “God had no name in eternity, before creation,” and that He only chose a name afterward for the sake of human understanding. But this dichotomy between “eternal namelessness” and “temporal naming” is not only theologically unnecessary—it is biblically false.
Isaiah 6:3 reveals a pre-incarnate, heavenly vision in which the seraphim cry aloud: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.” The Hebrew text uses YHWH Ṣəḇā’ōṯ—a direct invocation of the divine name. This is not a mere anthropomorphic accommodation for Isaiah’s benefit. The name of the LORD is declared in the heavenly court, by heavenly beings, prior to the full unveiling of redemptive history. This directly contradicts the claim that God “had no name” in His eternal state.
Similarly, Psalm 135:13 proclaims: “Thy name, O LORD, endureth for ever; and thy memorial, O LORD, throughout all generations.” The Hebrew here again uses YHWH. His name is not a passing convenience for human beings—it is His perpetual memorial. Scripture never treats God’s name as a temporary label, but as a revelation of His eternal identity.
So while it is true that God reveals Himself progressively through redemptive history, including in names like El Shaddai, YHWH, and ultimately Jesus (Matt. 1:21), the suggestion that God had no name until creation is both biblically and theologically indefensible. Names like YHWH and Jesus do not emerge from necessity or human invention—they are self-disclosures of the one, eternal God.
You also argue elsewhere that Philippians 2:9–11 does not teach that the name given to Christ is “Jesus,” but perhaps something else—like “Son” or “Lord.” This reading collapses under grammatical and contextual scrutiny.
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…” (Phil. 2:9–11)
The phrase in verse 10, “ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ” (en tō onomati Iēsou), means “at the name of Jesus.” This is a clear dative of reference or instrumental dative in Greek grammar. Paul does not say “at the title Lord” or “at the status of Son”—he specifies the name as Jesus. To argue that “name” refers to something else contradicts the direct grammatical construction.
Moreover, the noun ὄνομα (name) occurs over 200 times in the New Testament and consistently refers to actual names—especially when attached to a proper noun, as here.
Paul moves from Christ’s humiliation (vv. 6–8), to His exaltation and enthronement (v. 9), to the universal acknowledgment of His name (vv. 10–11). The climactic point is not a shift to some secret name revealed in exaltation—it is the vindication of the name Jesus, which in His earthly life had been mocked, rejected, and crucified. Now that name is universally confessed—because the Person bearing it is “Lord” (κύριος), a title now openly attached to the revealed name.
You argue that the name Jesus isn’t the “name above every name” because verse 11 says, “Jesus Christ is Lord.” But that confession is the result of bowing at the name Jesus—not a replacement of it. It is not “the name is Lord” but “Jesus Christ is Lord.” The title “Lord” (κύριος) is confessed about the person identified by the name Jesus. This harmonizes with Romans 10:9, where the salvific confession is “Jesus is Lord,” and Acts 2:36, where God has made “that same Jesus… both Lord and Christ.”
The text affirms the full exaltation of the name Jesus—not its abandonment.
You argue that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” function as names in Scripture, even if not technically proper names. But again, this does not meet the argument—it concedes it. “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” are relational designations, not identifiers. They only have meaning in reference to one another. A “father” is not a father of nothing, and a “son” is not a son without a source. These are descriptions of relationship, not personal names.
You cite Isaiah 9:6 to show that titles can be called “names.” But Isaiah is making a prophetic statement of revelation—what the Messiah shall be called. It does not mean all titles are the name. In fact, “His name shall be called…” is a Hebrew idiom indicating praise-titles, not proper names. The name given in Matthew 1:21 is Jesus—the only name that carries salvific weight (Acts 4:12). Isaiah 9:6 anticipates that child’s nature, but Matthew 1:21 gives us His actual name.
You then appeal to Hebrews 1:4–5 and claim that “Son” is the “name” inherited. But this reads the passage out of context. The author is using “name” in the context of status and inheritance. Jesus inherits a name above angels, not simply the relational role of “Son.” And Philippians 2:9–11 clarifies what name that is: “God hath given Him a name which is above every name… that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” The name in view is Jesus, not “Son.” Hebrews uses poetic structure and midrashic interpretation, but even there, “Son” is not presented as a baptismal formula.
You assert that “the name of the Father is not Jesus,” and that no texts support such an idea. But the biblical testimony contradicts you:
Scripture consistently affirms that the fullness of God—Father, Son, and Spirit—dwells bodily in Christ (Col. 2:9), and that the name of God is now manifest in Jesus (John 17:6). The NT church understood this and baptized accordingly.
Finally, you reiterate that “in the name of” can refer to authority while still involving verbal invocation. But that is the point. In biblical covenantal acts—especially sacramental ones like baptism—invocation was verbal and essential. It did not merely symbolize identification; it effected incorporation (cf. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3–4).
You claim to accept verbal invocation. Yet you deny its necessity. That is inconsistent. Either the invocation is required because the name of Jesus is the revealed identity and salvific means—or it is not, in which case, verbal invocation becomes optional. But the apostles treated it as mandatory. Baptism without the name had to be redone (Acts 19:5). That fact alone devastates your thesis.
You claim that the distinction between titles and names is artificial and modern. But the apostles were not confused about the difference. They did not invoke “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” in any recorded baptism. They invoked Jesus—because He is the name that reveals and embodies all three.
You affirm that Jesus’ name is used. You affirm that it is typically invoked. You affirm that the apostles baptized in Jesus’ name. And yet you withhold judgment on whether His name is essential. That’s like affirming the cross, but saying the crucifixion might not have been necessary. It is a contradiction you cannot sustain.
The name of Jesus is not a ritual garnish. It is the very identity of the saving God. Without it, there is no remission of sins—because no other name under heaven is given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12).
LikeLike
July 24, 2025 at 6:35 pm
Jason,
Thank you for the lengthy reply. My reply will be a bit lengthier, so please bear with me.
You write regarding HNT:
I’m glad you clarified that. I don’t claim that every instance of “in the name of” requires an oral invocation of the person’s name either. However, per Weatherly’s Calling on the Name of Jesus, every instance of baptism alludes to or requires the oral invocation of Christ’s name.
You write regarding the authority of Scripture and history:
In your first draft of your paper, your usage of history and scriptural data insinuated it was being used as an authority. If that was not your intention, then my apologies for misunderstanding. I agree that the historical record is important. However, I would nuance that the inspired record has the highest priority on matters of faith and doctrine compared to the likes of general human history.
You write regarding biblical interpretation and historical expectation:
This is where I would have to respectfully disagree. Consider Jesus’ warning “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing” and Paul’s admission “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.” Biblically, we are not guaranteed that sound doctrine would continue widespread well into the next few centuries. On the contrary, we are guaranteed that false doctrine would abound.
You further write:
According to the biblical precedent, I don’t think we need to expect this. Consider Paul’s charge to Timothy:
The turning away of those within the churches is an inevitability on the biblical view. Paul’s charge is to “do the work of an evangelist.” We have no promise that the post-apostolic leaders would endure sound doctrine or do the work of an evangelist. Rather, we have more grounds to expect there to be an early apostasy of those looking for false teachers.
Even though anyone would take support from the historical record, it does not follow that would weaken the case for what Scripture plainly teaches. If, on the contrary, Scripture plainly taught INFSH baptism, then whatever historical evidence to the contrary wouldn’t truly weaken the inspired teaching.
You write regarding the historical record:
This is another area where I would have to disagree with you. Although it is true that there is no formal debate over the baptismal formula until the 3rd century, it does not follow that Jesus’ name baptism virtually vanished in the preceding centuries. Their recognition in the debates as a formula lends credence to their historicity. In the 3rd century, we don’t even find issue with the INJC formula itself. At most, we find that INFHS is a post-apostolic accretion to the literal INJC baptism from Acts.
This is not even considering the historical treatment of Jesus’ name baptism by various bishops. The earliest treatment on its presence was a statement from bishop Stephen I: “whoever has been baptized anywhere in the name of Christ, at once obtains the grace of Christ.” For more on this bit of history, I recommend reading through Thomas Weisser’s article Jesus’ Name Baptism Though the Centuries.
You further write:
While I appreciate your goal in explaining the historical data in light of apostolic interpretation, I don’t see how this is not something we haven’t already done. As I’m sure you yourself know, our movement has two views on church history: a strong restorationism and a weak successionism. The former usually explains the data with eschatology while the latter usually explains the data by doing some type of historical theology.
As mentioned before, Brother Weisser has done a solid job in his works showing a historical continuity of Oneness-like groups that practiced baptism in Jesus’ name. Both camps in our movement have explained post-apostolic church leaders changed the practice mainly due to false teaching and apostasy. We see this warned in the biblical data, so it comes at us with no surprise. I think this is a sufficient explanation.
Lastly, regarding the weight of biblical and historical data:
Thanks for the clarification. Although, my initial critique was that presenting it as an option for those who value it seems to be counterproductive on what the original baptismal formula would be. The problem with the Roman and Eastern traditions is not that they hold an alternative, sound interpretation of all the baptismal texts in Scripture. Rather, the problem with those traditions is their priority of historical data over biblical data. They are not so much concerned with what the inspired record teaches alone as much as they are concerned with what a historical church body taught.
LikeLike
July 31, 2025 at 12:19 pm
Scalia,
Please show me in scripture where the Bible mandates a baptismal formula which must be recited during every act of baptism without which the grace that is conferred in baptism is withheld.
LikeLike
August 1, 2025 at 12:06 am
But the apostles didn’t share your flexibility. They commanded Jesus’ name to be invoked.
Where? In what way and by whom?
LikeLike
August 6, 2025 at 9:32 pm
Jason, I’d like to look more closely at Col. 3:17. Your handling of said verse betrays a subtle but decisive misstep in both exegetical method and theological consistency. You acknowledge that the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is connected to “whatever you do, in word or deed,” yet you resist the natural implication that this entails a verbal invocation of Jesus’ name. Instead, you retreat into a reductionist view that restricts the phrase to a kind of abstract authorization or moral alignment—ironically undermining the very covenantal and liturgical force the text was written to convey.
Let us be clear. The structure of the verse is not vague or elastic. It comprises two syntactical units: “whatever you do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” and “giving thanks to God the Father through him.” The participial phrase “giving thanks” (εὐχαριστοῦντες) modifies the main imperative and reveals how the “doing” is to be conducted—namely, by the giving of thanks through Christ, which is necessarily a verbal act. This is not speculation; it is syntactically grounded and contextually reinforced by parallel Pauline constructions—especially Ephesians 5:20, where “giving thanks” in the name of Jesus is unambiguously presented as an act of spoken doxology.
Moreover, the immediate context of Colossians 3 centers on public exhortation, psalms, hymns, spiritual songs (v. 16)—all acts that presuppose articulation. It is exegetically incoherent to suppose that in a context dominated by speech-acts directed toward God, Paul pivots to an abstract, internalized concept of doing something “in Jesus’ name” without uttering that name. On what grammatical or contextual basis can such a shift be defended?
Now, since you appeal to historical considerations throughout your analysis, one wonders why you neglect to consult the actual reception history of this passage. The early church did not stumble over your proposed dichotomy between invocation and authority. The Fathers consistently took “in the name” to imply spoken invocation. John Chrysostom, commenting on this very passage, exhorts believers: “Not even eating, he says, not even drinking, be done without reference to the glory of God… always naming Him upon our works.” The point is not merely that Christ authorizes the believer’s actions, but that His name is to be called upon in and through them. Invocation, for Chrysostom, is not one optional mode of reference—it is the sine qua non of Christian action.
In sum: You attempt to parse “in the name” as a flexible metaphor for authority, but Paul’s construction in this verse is not elastic enough to accommodate that abstraction. The text and theological telos of the passage all converge on one point: Christian action in Jesus’ name means calling upon that name. To strip Colossians 3:17 of its verbal force is not an act of nuanced exegesis. It is textbook eisegesis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 6, 2025 at 9:44 pm
Jason, you attempt to dismiss the relevance of Ephesians 5:20 to the interpretation of Colossians 3:17 is exegetically arbitrary and philosophically unsustainable. It reveals a troubling inconsistency: when appealing to contextual nuance suits your position, you elevate it as decisive. But when such nuance threatens your argument, you retreat behind ad hoc distinctions and speculative dismissals.
You concede that the epistles are strikingly parallel in structure, phrasing, and flow of thought—yet you assert, without warrant, that Paul need not be making the same point in both cases. That’s a non sequitur. Of course Paul need not make identical points with identical language—but the burden is on you to show that he isn’t doing so here, especially when the linguistic and grammatical evidence leans precisely in that direction.
Let’s be precise. In Ephesians 5:20, Paul writes:
Now compare Colossians 3:17:
This is not merely a superficial similarity. Paul uses identical structures:
This is not thematic overlap; this is syntactic parallelism. The most natural reading is that Colossians 3:17 builds upon the very framework laid out in Ephesians 5:20. There is no contextual disjunction demanding a different interpretive framework. Indeed, any responsible reader trained in Pauline style would immediately recognize that Paul is summarizing the spirit of Christian obedience as one marked by verbal invocation and thanksgiving, offered to God through Christ, and done in His name.
Now let us address the philosophical problem with your argument: You admit that “in the name of” can involve verbal invocation and even say that it typically does—but then you assert that “it doesn’t always.” This, you believe, absolves you of the need to demonstrate verbal invocation in Colossians 3:17.
But your epistemic standard is flawed. The fact that a linguistic expression can function in multiple ways does not mean all usages are up for grabs. Language is constrained by context. Consider the phrase “call upon the name of the Lord.” While it could theoretically mean merely trusting in God, the overwhelming usage—both biblically and historically—is verbal (cf. Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). You are not entitled to default to the non-verbal reading simply because it is possible. You must show that it is warranted by the context, and here you have not done so.
On the contrary, the context includes explicit mention of thanksgiving—a verbal act. The grammar (as even you admit) links “giving thanks” to “do all in the name of.” This participial construction (eucharistountes) functions not independently but as a means clause—explaining how the prior imperative is carried out. That is, “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” by giving thanks to God through Him. The act of doing “in the name” is not merely mental or symbolic—it is performed vocally through the act of thanksgiving.
To argue otherwise is not only grammatically implausible but leads to incoherence. It would reduce Paul’s exhortation to a tautology: “do everything in the name of Jesus by…doing things in His authority.” That is neither informative nor consistent with the broader Pauline pattern, where invocation—especially in the name of Jesus—is embodied in speech (Rom. 10:9–13; 1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 22:16).
In short, your dismissal of the Eph. 5:20 parallel fails:
The conclusion is plain: Colossians 3:17 is not a vague appeal to mental assent to Christ’s authority. It is a summons to verbal acknowledgment—to doing and saying all things by invoking the name of Jesus, both in thanksgiving and action. To dilute that to a metaphor for intent is to evacuate the verse of its linguistic, theological, and liturgical weight.
LikeLiked by 1 person