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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

Yeppers!

 

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.

 

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:

 

"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?

 

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).

 

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

 

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

 

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