"baptize ... in the name of ... "

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Alcott, Jul 22, 2004.

?

The words “baptize … in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”…

  1. <b>must</b> be said, or the person being baptized is not saved

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. <b>must</b> be said in order for a baptism to be a true Christian baptism

    5.6%
  3. are the only scriptural words to be said immediately prior to baptism

    16.7%
  4. <b>must</b> be said in order to obey the command of Jesus

    11.1%
  5. are preferable to the words, “baptize … in the name of Jesus”

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. means the one so baptized does <i>not</i> do ALL in the name of the Lord Jesus

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. are <i>equal</i> in establishing the authority of baptism with the words “in the name of Jesus [only

    5.6%
  8. mean something different and superior to “baptize … in the name of Jesus”

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. mean something different and inferior to “baptize … in the name of Jesus”

    5.6%
  10. are not necessary to be said at a Christian baptism—they are affirmed as true by the profession of f

    44.4%
  11. simply mean ‘by the authority of the triune God,’ whether stated just that way or not

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. must have been inserted into the biblical texts in later copies than those of the 1st century

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  13. have little importance

    11.1%
  14. No answer

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    This is a followup poll to the ‘…Baptists are not literalists’ poll, based on the particular question that has stirred the most posts in response.

    The scripture reference in relation to this issue are:
    Matthew 28:19, "...baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

    Acts 2:38 -- Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    Acts 8:16 -- For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    Acts 10:48 -- And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

    Acts 19:5 -- When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    Colossians 3:17 -- Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.
     
  2. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    The verses from Acts are narrative and should not necessarily be taken as commands the way Matt 28.19 is given. Also, saying people were baptized in the name of Jesus is probably just saying they became Christians. The actual baptisms could have been in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    The Col 3.17 passage is not talking about baptism and is overriden by Matt 28.19. Using the words of Matt 28.19 affirms the Trinity.

    One is already saved when baptized, so what is said has nothing to do with salvation. However,
    since the UPC (Oneness -- deny the trinity and personhood of the HS) and other Oneness groups baptize just in the name of Jesus, I think it is even more important that Christians use the Triniterian formula.
     
  3. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    The verses from Acts are narrative and should not necessarily be taken as commands the way Matt 28.19 is given.

    Consider Acts 10:48 -- And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

    This was a "command" to the persons who were there. Either baptism "in the name of Jesus" is a command, or else it is the same as baptism "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

    The Col 3.17 passage is not talking about baptism and is overriden by Matt 28.19.

    I disagree. It is talking about whatever we do in word or deed.

    Using the words of Matt 28.19 affirms the Trinity.

    Not necessarily. I have known Baptists who deny the Trinity, and it is a predominant conclusion that if Baptist they were baptized according to the word of Matthew 28:19. Perhaps there should be a poll which asks if belief in the Trinity is a requirement for salvation. I do not think it is or it would be more explcitly taught in scripture. But salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus; not by theological perfection regarding the Trinity or any other topic.

    But just so there is no misunderstanding, I do believe in the Trinity, and for that reason I believe when we say "Jesus" we are including ALL of the eternal God; therefore, Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 equally establish the authority by which we are baptized.

    Just one more question: If in our prayers we say "in the name of Jesus" [not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit}, are we affirming "oneness" as the above-referenced UPC are doing?
     
  4. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    This does not mean they were baptized in the name of Jesus only. Being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ meant they were becoming Christians, not being baptized in other names or just being baptized (as OT Jews were). Also, the Matt 28 passages still towers over this as a clear command from Christ.

    As for the Col passage, that is not a direct command about baptism, either. It is just talking about how we belong to Christ and should do things in his name.

    If there are Baptists who deny the Trinity, then they are not affirming the Baptist teachings. The Trinity is not a matter of theological perfection and it is clearly taught in scripture. Modalism, the Oneness doctrine of today, was an early teaching that was denounced as a heresy.

    Do you understand the implications of denying the Trinity? It means you have a different God than the Bible and the Christian faith. Oneness denies the personhood of the HS -- the HS is just a power of God. Is this Christianity? Absolutely not! Was Jesus pretending to pray to himself in the Garden? When He commended his spirit to his Father on the cross, was he just pretending someone was there or talking to himself? When he spoke about His father (such as saying He did the will of his Father in heaven and other numerous verses -- too many to post here), was he just pretending he had a Father? To say that Jesus and God the Father are the same person, and that the HS is a power or force of God is to present a religion other than Christianity.

    No, because praying is not baptism and we were not told by Jesus to pray in that way. Also, the distinct Matt 28 way of baptizing does differentiate Trinitarians very clearly from Oneness followers since Oneness followers believe that you are not saved unless you are baptized by them in the name of Jesus only.
     
  5. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not a magic spell with exact wording being paramount. No incantation to conjure up the powers that be. It is a process and activity to identify the subject with the truth of Jesus' ministry and God's plan for believers and to distinguish them from those who will not obey Him. We are not free to use just any words at all but, we are free to use words that appropriately convey that concept. We know the two phrases under discussion are OK and either one is acceptable.
     
  6. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Intresting Poll Allcott. But my question is if the Lord's name isn't the the baptism, isn't it a bath and not a baptism ? Just a little thought

    -butts out-

    God Bless!
     
  7. rufus

    rufus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeppers!
     
  8. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    Also, the Matt 28 passages still towers over this as a clear command from Christ.

    That's just brainwashing, as can be easily verified by examining other topics. For example, there were some close families in Acts and in the epistles, and obeying one's parents was reemphasized. So, do Jesus' words about hating one's parents or children in Luke 14:26 "tower over" these relationships because it was said by Christ? or do you use different reasoning on this one?

    As for the Col passage, that is not a direct command about baptism, either. It is just talking about how we belong to Christ and should do things in his name.

    "Things" other than baptism? OK.

    The Trinity is not a matter of theological perfection and it is clearly taught in scripture.

    Before going any further, would you please give an explanation or description of the doctrine of the Trinity?
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    As far as I know, there is only one clear command in scripture from Jesus on how to baptize, and that is in Matt 28, so that should be the one to follow.

    I am not saying it's wrong to baptize in the name of Jesus, just that I believe it is strongly preferable to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and HS (and is the common practice in all Triniterian faiths that I know of).

    Even assuming it's okay to baptize in the name of Jesus (without mentioning the Father or the HS), I would still say that given the fact that a heretical group does this as a distinctive, it would be wiser to baptize with the Trinitarian formula to show a separation from them.

    If I were about to be baptized and I was given the choice, I would certainly choose the Trinitarian formula because it what Jesus commanded and it is more completely representative of the Biblical God.

    My definition of the Trinity comes mainly from Dr. Norman Geisler -- One "what" and 3 "who's", that is one divine Godhead of 3 distinct, co-equal, eternal Persons all sharing the divine substance of the Godhead and acting in complete harmony and unity.

    All definitions or explanations of the Trinity are necessarily difficult and fall short of perfection because this the very nature of God and though we can apprehend the Trinity, we cannot totally comprehend it. However, that latter fact does not negate its truth or significance.

    One of the distinctives of the Christian faith that is getting attacked today is the Trinity (along with hell, God knowing the future, and being saved under the name of Jesus). It is getting put down by Christians as unimportant or perhaps not even true, when it actually goes to the nature of God Himself, an essential of the faith.
     
  10. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    Alright, if the Trinity is so "clearly taught in scripture," why do you have to use an explanation that scripture does not use, and in fact the words do not even come close to a quote from scripture?
     
  11. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't believe I am getting this on a Baptist Board in the forum for Baptists only! Since when did the Trinity become such a challenged doctrine among Baptists? This is part of the historic faith and has been affirmed by all Christian churches.

    We don't have to find a definition of the Trinity in the Bible to try to explain it. The doctrine of the trinity is derived from scripture. It is not explicitly taught but is implicity taught.

    If this is new to you, I have some links that might help. Go to this link and scroll down a bit to the section, "The Trinity." Under that are several links that give the Biblical scriptures for this:
    http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm

    A good article showing the Trinity from the Bible:
    http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapter10.htm

    Here's an article, "Loving the Trinity," by James White:
    http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Ie2JhfdyX18J:www.equip.org/free/DT250.pdf+trinity+explained&hl=en

    From Easton's Bible Dictionary:
     
  12. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Is the Trinity in the Bible?"
    http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/trinitybible.htm
    This is basic stuff. If you are a Trinitarian, why are challenging the Trinity? Are you doubting it?
     
  13. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    The Trinity is not a matter of theological perfection and it is clearly taught in scripture.
    ..............
    We don't have to find a definition of the Trinity in the Bible to try to explain it. The doctrine of the trinity is derived from scripture. It is not explicitly taught but is implicity taught.


    That does not match; it is "clearly taught in scripture," yet "it is not explicitly taught but is implicitly taught." The Trinity is a conclusion drawn from scripture.

    If this is new to you, I have some links that might help.

    No, this is not exactly new.

    This is basic stuff. If you are a Trinitarian, why are challenging the Trinity? Are you doubting it?

    What I am doing is making the point that the Trinity is a difficult doctrine to defend if you are in that position with a JW or someone else who refutes it and has some knowledge of scripture. Telling them to read the books you want to give them or the links you want to share will not cut it. An explanation that starts something like "One what and 3 who's..." will not cut it. A cute little illustration like a 3-leafed shamrock will not cut it. You need to know how to defend the doctrine yourself and be prepared for difficult questions. i.e,... If the Trinity is true, How does the Father know when the end of the age will come, but not the Son? If Jesus himself is God, why on the cross did he cry "MY God!..."? How could Jesus have prayed "...not my will, but Your will, be done" if he and the Father and the Spirit are in "complete harmony"?....
     
  14. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm familiar with these issues as I have witnessed many, many times to JW's coming to my door (as well as to Mormons), and to some on the street. Usually with JW's, I focus on the deity of Christ. I also speak at conferences with those in ministry to people in cults like the JW's and Mormons, so I pick things up there.

    There are answers to the JW's challenge but you don't give them links or books; rather, you yourself should read the links and books to be informed and know how to answer them.

    Jesus as the Son chose to put aside some of his attributes (but not deity) and apparently did not know as a man the time of the 2nd coming. He submitted himself to the Father in a functional way but not in an actual way.

    When Jesus prayed, "Not my will but thy will..." he was submitting Himself to God the Father. They were in harmony. Jesus did not rebel at all.

    How to respond to all their questions maybe should be another thread and would take a lot of time to type out what one can say. There are good responses to every single thing they point out. They have been trained to point to certain scriptures but they are not trained to respond to a Christian who has the answer, nor can they usually respond outside the limited scriptures they are trained in.

    If it's knowing how to answer the JW's that you want, get Ron Rhodes Reasoning From the Scriptures With Jehovah's Witnesses (he also has this kind of book for Mormons, Masons, Roman Catholics, and I think some others).
     
  15. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are some links that might help as well (these are for Christians so they can be informed -- JW's will not read anything that is not from the Watchtower and I think they also are forbidden to go online).

    Debating with JW's
    http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/dwjw.htm

    Tools for witnessing to JW's (helpful tapes and books that you can get from this ministry)
    http://www.watchman.org/jw/jwtools.htm

    This link here goes to a site that gives responses for each of the usual scripture verses the JW's use
    http://www.gospeldefense.org/tips.php3

    If you click on Mk 13:32 (when Jesus said only God the Father knew the time of Jesus' return), this page pops up with a way to respond
    http://www.gospeldefense.org/disphtml.php3?id=13

    This link is composed of several topics re JW's and responding to them. Scroll down and see what looks helpful
    http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm

    One of the topics from above is about Jesus not knowing the time of his return
    http://www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_know.htm
     
  16. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    When Jesus prayed, "Not my will but thy will..." he was submitting Himself to God the Father. They were in harmony. Jesus did not rebel at all.

    More brainwashing. There was a conflict of wills there, or the words of Jesus were idle words. If Jesus' will = the Father's will, then he was saying, "Not your will be done, but your will be done." No, something had to be discarded, that being the particular will of Jesus at the time; discarding is not "harmony."

    Anyway, I have long had my own 'systems' of debating/arguing/shouting with cultists, so I pay little regard to any material I did not read long ago; just like I don't have to read high school algebra books, since I have had my degree in mathematics for years.
     
  17. dean198

    dean198
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alcott, I wonder how you would explain these difficulties (difficulties for standard trinitarianism, though not necessarily for historic 'trinitarianism' which acknowledges the Son's subordination)?

    Dean
     
  18. R. Charles Blair

    R. Charles Blair
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the best "Trinitarian" pasages is Eph. 1:3-14, one long sentence in which the three-oneness (triunity may be a better term, after all) is such an integral part of the description of salvation that to remove any part is to destroy the whole. Note Eph. 1:3-6, the work of God the Father in our salvation; 3:6-13, the work of the Son in our Salvation; 3:13-14, the work of the Holy Spirit in our salvation, each unit ending with the same basic "to the praise of His glory" phrase. The triune manifestation of deity is so clear in this passage that the JW ("New World") translation has to "fudge" a bit at the end of v. 14 to avoid the obvious. (They give a "stretch" translation and do not capitalize "holy spirit".)
    This passage could not in any possible case be simply an "added verse;" it is woven into the fabric of the letter. I believe an earlier post mentioned II Cor. 13:14, which as a single verse at the end of a letter might be suspect but from all my Greek sources has actually never been challenged as original.

    Also, Romans 11:19-20 refers to "that which may be known" of the Godhead (usually understood as the fulness of the triune God) being made known
    "by the things that are made." Henry Morris points out three-oneness in nature (the sun is matter/energy in the sky, yet heat and light here, one yet three; water is usually liquid, yet when frozen is a solid, and heated becomes a gas; it is perfectly possible to have all 3 in the same place at the same instant with ice cubes placed under hot water so that steam rises; we live in a "tri-universe," a time-space-matter continum, three distinct entities, each of which is the whole, and each of those 3 dimensions also triune - see the last chapter of "The Long War Against God" p. 275 for details.)

    It is better to have the triune nature of God woven into the fabric of the universe, and into the texture of Scripture, than to have one or two "proof texts." Best - RCB - Ro. 8:28
     

Share This Page

Loading...