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

[Alcott]

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.

 

[Marcia]

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.

 

[Alcott]

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?

 

[Marcia]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Artimaeus]

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.

 

[amixedupmom]

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!

 

[rufus]

I think it is even more important that Christians use the Triniterian formula.

Yeppers!

 

[Alcott]

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?

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Alcott:
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?

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?

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.

 

[Alcott]

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

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?

 

[Marcia]

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?

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:

Trinity - a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: Matt_1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut_6:4; 1_Kings_8:60; Isaiah_44:6; Mark_12:29,32; John_10:30). John_2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. John_3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. John_4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

 

[Marcia]

"Is the Trinity in the Bible?"
http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/trinitybible.htm

Scriptures are quoted below as a summary of the many other biblical passages that bring together the three Persons of the Godhead. One Scripture is from the Gospels, another is from the apostle Paul and a third is from the apostle Peter. The words in each passage referring to each of the three Persons are italicized to emphasize their Trinitarian implication:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19].

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all [2 Corinthians 13:14].

To God’s elect. . .who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood [1 Peter 1:1-2].

Here are three passages in Scripture, one on the lips of Jesus, and the other two from leading apostles, each bringing together the three Persons of the Godhead in an unmistakable way. But these are only a sampling of other similar passages. Among others are the following: Romans 14:17-18; 15:16;

1 Corinthians 2:2-5; 6:11; 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18-22; 3:14-19; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:6-8; 1Thessalonians 1:3-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; Titus 3:4-6. The reader is encouraged to read each of these passages and note how God (Father), Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are brought together as instruments of our salvation.

Certainly, such passages show that the New Testament faith is implicitly Trinitarian.

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

 

[Alcott]

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"?....

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Alcott:
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"?....

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).

 

[Marcia]

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]

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.

 

[dean198]

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"?....

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

 

[R. Charles Blair]

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