Hello! I have been raised Pentecostal. (Trinitarian) I believe in the Trinity 100%. The church I have always belonged to has always baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, I have never seen this in scripture. Everyone was always baptized in Jesus name. I guess I'm just torn here. Can I get some thoughts from both Trinitarian, and Unitarian believers PLEASE?
I can't find one place in Scripture where we see any baptismal formula used during water baptism. Acts mentions folks being baptized "in Jesus name," but it never cites such as a saying invoked over somebody from the lips of one baptizing another. "In Jesus name," instead of being a formula invoked, is simply stating in whose authority (name) the baptism was conducted. This, I believe, distinguishes one from having received "the baptism of John" over that of Christ. If there is any baptismal formula that is suggested in Scripture, it comes at the end of Matthew 28 during the great commission. However, it cannot be absolutely proven such is a commanded baptismal formula, even though, traditionally, it has been seen as such.
As it is, such debates I believe come from those who hold to a works based mentality, instead of people who understand anything of grace. The letter killeth, but the Spirit gives life. Is it no surprise then, that those who generally hold to a "Jesus only" view of baptism also hold to a works based salvation scheme? Why the fuss over it unless such is one's approach?
The scriptures tell us that what ever we do in word or in deed to do all in the name of Jesus.
The only name under heaven where by we must be saved is the name of Jesus.
There is only one passage of scripture in the whole bible where it says to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
All though the book of Acts it is very obvious that they baptized in the name of Jesus because we are to do everything in the name of Jesus.
I believe the devil loves to use scripture to divide us over doctrine. We all need to be clear about who saves us. We all know we are not saved by physical water but by the blood of Jesus applied by the Holy Spirit. I always baptized in the name of Jesus because He is who I’m representing when I am standing in the water to baptize one who has trusted in Jesus for salvation. I always say something like I baptize you in the name of Jesus into His death and raised by his Spirit to walk in newness of life in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. I say more than this when I pray over them.
I believe there is no argument when we understand how we are saved. We are standing in His name and in His stead when we baptize and we know that fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus. We couldn’t know the Father without coming to Jesus and we couldn’t receive the Holy Ghost without receiving Him through Jesus. People need to know that God is triune and that there is a relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They also need to know the name of Jesus and that He is the only way to the Father.
Blessings to all!
Here are some older SI links that touch on this very thing:
Hi Logan...
I am most definitely a "trinity" guy. But I have noticed that this topic can become quite divisive amongst some people.
Personally, I don't think that those words ("[i]In the name of Jesus[i]In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost
I currently live in Texas. The name "Jesus" (pronouced "Heh-zoose" or "Hey-Zoose") is a common name. In fact, my neighbor's name is Jesus (they call him "Chuey" for short). His name, although named after our Lord, is just a name. There is no power in the name of Jesus Garza. In fact, the name "Yeshua" was actually somewhat common at the time of Christ's birth. The name itself is a just a word. But the association and direction of that name with our faith in God is what gives it power. Philippians 2:9 even says that God gave him the name! But that name must be directed at our Lord.
I've even heard people who believe in the concept of the trinity who still prefer to be baptized "in the name of Jesus." I even attended a youth camp where two sets of baptisms were performed -- one in "the name of Jesus" and the other in "the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Ironically, both sides seem to point to verses that validate their preference. There were even people who felt strongly that baptism performed without such a certain set of words was void of significance! It was almost as that certain little phrase was an incantation!
But is this what our Lord had in mind? Must those words be uttered aloud during baptism in order to make it "authentic" or "certified?" Or is the important thing that people are baptized into the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
I’ve often wondered if, somewhere, there might be a mute congregation who performed water baptism. Without an ability to speak, what “words” would they utter? Would their baptism be obsolete based solely upon the significant lack of use of a certain set of words? Or would their baptism still matter – because of the faith in our Lord for which they are baptized?
In this sense, I am persuaded that these “two” baptisms are actually one and the same. They are both the result of individuals who are being baptized into the faith that recognizes our Lord and Savior as Jesus Christ! I certainly believe in the concept of the “trinity” (a separate “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” aspect to the one true God). However, I wouldn’t have doubted the validity of my baptism if the man who dunked me had proclaimed either set of words. In my heart, it was not those words that mattered. It was my faith in the God who saved me! It was a public proclamation that I had accepted the atoning sacrifice of Christ and was now laying down the “old” man (like the Earth at the great flood) and becoming something entirely new.
When God speaks to me, He hardly speaks English. Usually, his “speech” results with the impartation of a thought, an image or a strong emotion into my thoughts and heart. Sometimes, it is just a knowledge that simply overwhelms me. What am I saying? I don’t believe that God is confined to our earthly language. Our earthly languages are just so flawed. There could never be human words that could ever describe the awesome greatness and love of our Lord and King! Then why do we try to “confine” Him to a set of words? Like KingJimmy expressed, are we placing an emphasis upon a particular verbal “formula”…or in the Savior?
These are just a few things to think about...
:-)
logan_trky wrote:
Hello! I have been raised Pentecostal. (Trinitarian) I believe in the Trinity 100%. The church I have always belonged to has always baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, I have never seen this in scripture. Everyone was always baptized in Jesus name. I guess I'm just torn here. Can I get some thoughts from both Trinitarian, and Unitarian believers PLEASE?
Matt 17:8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only
Matt 17:8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus - BlazedbyGod
29The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.' 31I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." 32And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."
Without a Trinity this confession from John could be put directly in the mouth of a crazy man. His circular talk would be crazy nuts...truly crazy nuts... Also read John Chapters 14-17... no Trinity...Jesus is a total nut-job. So a JESUS ONLY(!!!) view...
Thommy2 wrote:
Matt 17:8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus - BlazedbyGod29The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.' 31I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." 32And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."
Without a Trinity this confession from John could be put directly in the mouth of a crazy man. His circular talk would be crazy nuts...truly crazy nuts... Also read John Chapters 14-17... no Trinity...Jesus is a total nut-job. So a JESUS ONLY(!!!) view...
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three [b]ARE
Trinity doctrine teaches that there are 3 IN 1, but the Holy Writ teaches that the 3 ARE 1-major difference.
Col 2:9 9 For [b]in him[b]in him
Trinity doctrine teaches Christ is IN the trinity,as the second person-but Holy Word of God teaches, the Godhead is IN Christ-and that Christ is the "..alpha and omega" .."first and the last"-
John 5:43 [color=FF3300]I am come [b]in my Father's name
Whose name did Jesus come in?
What is the NAME of the Father?
When Matt 28:19 is read correctly, you will understand that the "..3 are 1" (as 1 John 5:7) says, and that the name of the Father, AND OF the Son are exactly the same.
Isa 9:6For unto us a [b]child[b]son[b]and his name shall be called[b]The everlasting Father
Isaiah clearly called the " son" that was given, the Everlasting Father.
Hermenutics bro
the term "in the name of..." is an idiom. So the Father's name is...a bunch of names (El Shaddai, El Elyon...etc) Not one singular name
Don't take an idiom mistranslate and come up with a doctrine. So I will (if i ever baptize folk) in the authority of God, because of the work of Jesus. But I won't put on a yolk b/c of a catch phrase.
John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. Whose name did Jesus come in? What is the NAME of the Father?
In the passage you've quoted, Jesus didn't say He came in the name of "the Father", He said:
"I come in MY Father's name"
Is He then His own Father? This verse does not lead to the conclusion you've drawn from Isaiah - that's an extrapolation at best!
To come "in the name" of someone means to represent them and have their authority invoked through that name. A bit like how we approach the Father "in the name" of Jesus, it doesn't mean we always have to say "in the name" of Jesus, we approach in His name, which is how we enter through the veil - because He has entered before us as a High Priest BEFORE GOD, Haleilujuah!
Are you actually saying that when Jesus said "I come in My Father's name" He meant:
"I am the father, because my name is the father - I come in my own name." ?!
Adam
KingJimmy wrote:
I can't find one place in Scripture where we see any baptismal formula used during water baptism. Acts mentions folks being baptized "in Jesus name," but it never cites such as a saying invoked over somebody from the lips of one baptizing another. "In Jesus name," instead of being a formula invoked, is simply stating in whose authority (name) the baptism was conducted. This, I believe, distinguishes one from having received "the baptism of John" over that of Christ. If there is any baptismal formula that is suggested in Scripture, it comes at the end of Matthew 28 during the great commission. However, it cannot be absolutely proven such is a commanded baptismal formula, even though, traditionally, it has been seen as such.
Well, it's great to see I'm not the only one who holds that view on the "baptism formula" thing. It's a sad thing when people turn it into some magic chant that if you don't say it right the person just may not be saved.
Thommy2 wrote:
Hermenutics brothe term "in the name of..." is an idiom. So the Father's name is...a bunch of names (El Shaddai, El Elyon...etc) Not one singular name
Don't take an idiom mistranslate and come up with a doctrine. So I will (if i ever baptize folk) in the authority of God, because of the work of Jesus. But I won't put on a yolk b/c of a catch phrase.
So according to you, JESUS name is a "yoke". or the phrase " In the name of Jesus" is an "yoke" -I guess you don't tell people to pray "[color=FF0000]in my name[/color] " either?
Oh, and I might add, he did not say" I am come in my father's nameS"-he said " I am come in my Father's NAME.." -That ONE name that was comprised of; and fullfiled ALL the names/titles of God in that ONE name.
But even if you want to talk about all the other names/titles of God, there still is:
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is [b]none other name
Phillipians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is [b]above every name[b]every knee should bow, of things in heaven
PreachParsly wrote:
KingJimmy wrote:
I can't find one place in Scripture where we see any baptismal formula used during water baptism. Acts mentions folks being baptized "in Jesus name," but it never cites such as a saying invoked over somebody from the lips of one baptizing another. "In Jesus name," instead of being a formula invoked, is simply stating in whose authority (name) the baptism was conducted. This, I believe, distinguishes one from having received "the baptism of John" over that of Christ. If there is any baptismal formula that is suggested in Scripture, it comes at the end of Matthew 28 during the great commission. However, it cannot be absolutely proven such is a commanded baptismal formula, even though, traditionally, it has been seen as such.
Well, it's great to see I'm not the only one who holds that view on the "baptism formula" thing. It's a sad thing when people turn it into some magic chant that if you don't say it right the person just may not be saved.
Then I don't know what you think Matt 28:19 is, but to me, that is clearly a/the formula:
Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them [b]in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, [b]Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
Mark 16:17 [color=FF0000]And these signs shall follow them that believe; [b]In my name
John 14:13 [color=FF0000]And whatsoever ye shall [b]ASK in my name
Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and SAID to the spirit, I command thee [b]in the name of Jesus Christ
What did Paul "say" to the spirit?
Magic phrase, NO, but all power in the name of Christ through the Spirit of Christ unto the obedience and glory of Christ-
I guess it is good to know that there is still:
Acts 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded [b]that they should not speak in the name of Jesus
I guess the next thing that will happen, is someone will log on to this thread and say to me:
Acts 5:28 Saying, [b]Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name
And me, I will have to say, exactly what Pete said:
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, [b]We ought to obey God rather than men
All hail the Power of; and in the name of JESUS.
adamdawkins wrote:John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. Whose name did Jesus come in? What is the NAME of the Father?
In the passage you've quoted, Jesus didn't say He came in the name of "the Father", He said:
"I come in MY Father's name"
Is He then His own Father? This verse does not lead to the conclusion you've drawn from Isaiah - that's an extrapolation at best!
To come "in the name" of someone means to represent them and have their authority invoked through that name. A bit like how we approach the Father "in the name" of Jesus, it doesn't mean we always have to say "in the name" of Jesus, we approach in His name, which is how we enter through the veil - because He has entered before us as a High Priest BEFORE GOD, Haleilujuah!
Are you actually saying that when Jesus said "I come in My Father's name" He meant:
"I am the father, because my name is the father - I come in my own name." ?!
Adam
No, I am not saying that.
" I am come IN MY FATHER'S NAME"
I am asking, what is, his Father's name?
Oh, and by the way=the caps, and bold are NOT meant to offend anyone, neither is it me yelling at anybody-that is just my way of highlighting the part of the verse I am putting emphasis on. :-)
I'm not going to respond to your post Blazed. We have already been down that road. :-)
PreachParsly wrote:
I'm not going to respond to your post Blazed. We have already been down that road. :-)
I am not sure which post you are referring to. It is understandable if you do not wish to respond-I am not arguing with you (at least that is not the way I see it)
Sorry, I probably posted a link to the wrong page. If you click next it will show where we discussed this topic.
I'm mainly putting it here for others to reference.
Then I don't know what you think Matt 28:19 is, but to me, that is clearly a/the formula:Matt 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:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Strikingly odd that you would match those two together brother;
[i]baptizing them [b]in the name of the Father[u]and
[i]be baptized every one of you [b]in the name of Jesus Christ
All 3 in the first instance and Jesus singularly in the second.
Which just proves the point of the many here and elsewhere have been attempting to get across ... Both-either, it makes no difference whatsoever, the only differentiating being done is not by the scriptures but by those that insist that there is some distinction to be made. Besides that you are flatly contradicting yourself.
Blazed this has long been a contention with you that is drummed up every time the subject is broached, the past links bare this out. You are neither making sense nor a point and are in this error;
[i]Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
Furthermore;
I guess the next thing that will happen, is someone will log on to this thread and say to me:Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem (SI) with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
That is the height of audacity and biting cynicism. Worse is it a incredible insinuation and patently absurd. No one here would even entertain that notion - That you have only shows forth your bitterness.
The scriptures are replete with an interchange of names, an interplay if you will even of God Himself, how many in the Old Testament alone? I am looking right now at "[i]Knowing God by Name
[i]Many books have been written about the names of God. Most of these are scholarly works, exploring the deepest theological meanings behind each of God's names. They are exhaustive, covering the 23 compound names of God found in scripture, as well as the more than forty compound names of Jehovah.
Striving over [i]words[i]meaning[i]strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
Php 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
1Jn 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
2Ti 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Rom 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Of God, of the Spirit - Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ- The Father, my God, of God in Christ Jesus, God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord, of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost.
Search it out - There is no formula to be found anywhere but the greatest variety of expression -And, in, of - through. Interchangeable and expressive, sometimes one way and sometimes another. And note that it matters not what the subject matter is, be it baptism or be it prayer. Why does this reasoning not apply then across the board? I am not now speaking of [i]distinctives[i]stated[i]Baptize them - Be Baptized
This contending and parsing is hubris - go look it up and cease from it's practice, [i]subverting of the hearers
"Besides that you are flatly contradicting yourself."
I am not contradicting myself, by using Matt 28:19 & Acts 2:38 in the harmony in which they do not oppose each other, but rather reveal each other.
By using those two verses, I am merely stating that JESUS (as it is written in Matt 1:21) is the NAME of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost, because, as 1 John 5:7 states "....and these 3 ARE 1".
I find it quite absurd, that I am judged by being called "bitter" or "having bitterness"-where not one single post in this thread shows any hostitlity or offense in any of my posts here. May I call to rememberance, that I am not even the one who started this thread-and neither have I started any threads pertaining to this topic since about sometime late 07, early 08-yet I am accuses of trying to supposedly subvert the hearers.
Even when speaking with Preachparsely I made it quite clear, that there was NO bitterness involved. plainly telling him that I was not arguing with him-yet upon the opinions of man (and I am not referring to PreachParsley) I am held or called as "being in error"-simply because the majority of people on SI believe another way-
I fint it interesting that everytime this topic comes out, the only person that ends up being called any names of judged, is myself, when I myself have never done anything of that sort=but I am the accused one.
Matt 28:19 is the command given by Jesus.
Acts 2:38 was the obedience to that command.
Jesus Christ clearly taught us to directly pray in his name, cast out devils in his name, heal the sick in his name-but all of a sudden when it comes to baptism, it doesn't make a difference, or supposedly there is no clearity on the issue.
The authority of God, is the Spirit of God, the finger of God, the WORD of God-when Paul cast out the demons, with authority that is in the name of Jesus did the demon come out. The Spirit bears the authority of God upon the NAME (Jesus)
The clear emphasis of the Book of Acts, is that every water baptism done referred to JESUS.
"...in the name of Jesus Christ.."
"...in the name of the Lord Jesus.."
"...in the name of the Lord.."
Even when John Baptist baptized, it was called " JOHN'S Baptism" (Acts 19), why would it be any different pertaining to Christ?
JESUS is the name of the Father...."AND OF the Son
Matt 1:21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name [b]JESUS
Why is JESUS written in all capital letters in this verse, and in Luke 2:21?
Gen 2:4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the [b]LORD
Who made the world-God, or the Son of God
Gen 1:1 In the beginning [b]God
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: [b]all things were created by him
Did Jesus reconcile us unto God, or unto himself?
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, [b]by him to reconcile all things unto himself
Eph 2:16 And that he might [b]reconcile both unto God
Who is the Saviour-God, or the Son of God?
Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, [b]thy Saviour[b]and beside me there is no saviour
Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a [b]Saviour, which is Christ the Lord
John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world
Who sent the Holy Ghost-God, or the Son of God?
John 14:26 [color=FF0000]But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, [b]whom the FATHER WILL SEND in my name
John 15:26 [color=FF0000]But when the Comforter is come, [b]whom I WILL SEND unto you from the Father
I believe in the name of JESUS, yet I am called as being in error, ONLY because I believe in his name. I am not teaching no other means of salvation, I am not teaching any type of works of man, I am not even teaching "another Jesus"-but because I believe in his name I am accused as being in error, bitter, contentions,and subverting the hearers.
Grace & Mercy, unto Peace like a rive be unto thee all. :-)
This discussion is locked.
