No Jesus Name Invoked, No Valid Baptism?

[TyronePalmer]

Ok so we all know that the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit is JESUS.

So if a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized by someone who does not know this truth says, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does that make the believers baptism invalid in the sight of God?

This is my case by the way, I was baptized in water by full immersion, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and the person baptizing me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit", I didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until eight years later. Now, one might say I need to be re-baptized in Jesus name only, but technically I was, just because the one baptizing me did not explicitly say "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus", I was still baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit which is JESUS!

I also participated in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:3-4

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

And what about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

He was baptized by Philip the Evangelist and the text does not say the Eunuch was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36-38

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him."

Was the Eunuch's baptism valid?

I certainly believe it was, the Eunuch may not have received the Holy Spirit at that point though, because earlier in the chapter we see those who were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' as the text says, but did not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles were called down and they land hands on the people and prayed for them to be baptized with the Spirit.

Perhaps God allowed these events to be recorded exactly as they happened so that we don't become too dogmatic about baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit? Or maybe Philip did say, 'in Jesus name', but it's not recorded?

Like Cornelius, his family, and the rest of the people in his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, and not one hand was laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So those who say, Trinitarians for example, should be re-baptized in Jesus name should re-think their beliefs in light of the scriptures, that show us God doesn't do things exactly the same way every time and that we don't need to get stuck in some formulaic tradition that may cause us to believe that if a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has an invalid baptism.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by TyronePalmer

Ok so we all know that the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit is JESUS.


The word "name" in Matthew 28:19 is not referring to what someone is called. It means authority. Both Trinitarians and Oneness miss what Jesus is saying. We must look at the previous verse (18) to understand the context of verse 19. In verse 18, Jesus is referring to his coming exaltation/glorification, where he "sits at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool". And of course, we all know "right hand" is figurative. In verse 19, Jesus is referring to the same authority he spoke of being given in verse 18. Who gave it to him? The Father, the only true God. Thus in verse 19, Jesus in saying, "Because I've been given all authority in Heaven and Earth, I command you to go teach all nations and baptize, endowed with the authority that is the Father's, that he gave to me his Son, and will be made manifest through you by the Holy Ghost you will soon receive." Since Peter understood that Jesus was saying that all of God's authority was now operating exclusively through him, he could simply and more correctly command the people in Acts 2 to be baptized, "upon the authority of Jesus Christ" or , in his name. Trinitarians stumble over this by thinking Jesus was teaching a baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. Apostolics miss it by calming Jesus was trying to teach us what God's real "name" is in that verse. Both miss the context completely.

So if a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized by someone who does not know this truth says, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does that make the believers baptism invalid in the sight of God?


No. Because he is not telling a lie. He is indeed baptizing them by the authority that the Father gave to the Son (verse 18) and is now operating through Spirit-filled believers by way of the Spirit of Christ. However, it certainly would be more appropriate for the baptizer to give Christ the credit for having all of that authority.

This is my case by the way, I was baptized in water by full immersion, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and the person baptizing me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit", I didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until eight years later. Now, one might say I need to be re-baptized in Jesus name only, but technically I was, just because the one baptizing me did not explicitly say "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus", I was still baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit which is JESUS!

I also participated in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:3-4

Those on here who link remission of sins to a proper invocation by the baptizer will claim God does not forgive those who were baptized as you describe. But then they turn around and claim credit for forgiving the one who was baptized.

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

And what about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

He was baptized by Philip the Evangelist and the text does not say the Eunuch was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36-38

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

HIS confession of Jesus being the Son of God is the only "invoking of the name" that was necessary for his sins to be forgiven when he was baptized.

So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him."

Was the Eunuch's baptism valid?

I certainly believe it was, the Eunuch may not have received the Holy Spirit at that point though, because earlier in the chapter we see those who were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' as the text says, but did not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles were called down and they land hands on the people and prayed for them to be baptized with the Spirit.

Perhaps God allowed these events to be recorded exactly as they happened so that we don't become too dogmatic about baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit? Or maybe Philip did say, 'in Jesus name', but it's not recorded?

Like Cornelius, his family, and the rest of the people in his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, and not one hand was laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So those who say, Trinitarians for example, should be re-baptized in Jesus name should re-think their beliefs in light of the scriptures, that show us God doesn't do things exactly the same way every time and that we don't need to get stuck in some formulaic tradition that may cause us to believe that if a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has an invalid baptism.

I believe we as Apostolics should re-examine our "name" view of Matthew 28:19. Then we will be in a more scriptural position to exhort our Trinitarians brothers to use the name Jesus in their baptismal invocations. Even from a Trinitarian standpoint, using the name Jesus in a baptismal invocation makes more sense, for the reasons I cited.

[TyronePalmer]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I believe we as Apostolics should re-examine our "name" view of Matthew 28:19. Then we will be in a more scriptural position to exhort our Trinitarians brothers to use the name Jesus in their baptismal invocations. Even from a Trinitarian standpoint, using the name Jesus in a baptismal invocation makes more sense, for the reasons I cited.

Yes! Great explanation of the authority of Christ, that helped me so much, but how many of those who believe in the trinity would be willing to listen in the first place?

It seems it's getting harder and harder for people to change their minds about anything these days!

But perhaps it is more important for the one being baptized to invoke the name of Jesus, like the Ethiopian Eunuch, than the one who is baptizing.

Jesus knows the hearts of all, even Simon the sorcerer believed and was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but his heart wasn't right!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by TyronePalmer

Yes! Great explanation of the authority of Christ, that helped me so much, but how many of those who believe in the trinity would be willing to listen in the first place?

Sadly, many Trinitarians view Matthew 28:19 as a proof-text that "all 3 persons of the Trinity are involved in our salvation".

It seems it's getting harder and harder for people to change their minds about anything these days!

God seldom violates our prejudices.

But perhaps it is more important for the one being baptized to invoke the name of Jesus, like the Ethiopian Eunuch, than the one who is baptizing.

That is the whole point of being baptized, what the one being baptized is doing.

Jesus knows the hearts of all, even Simon the sorcerer believed and was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but his heart wasn't right!

Indeed.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TyronePalmer

Ok so we all know that the NAME of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit is JESUS.

So if a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized by someone who does not know this truth says, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does that make the believers baptism invalid in the sight of God?

This is my case by the way, I was baptized in water by full immersion, I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and the person baptizing me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit", I didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until eight years later. Now, one might say I need to be re-baptized in Jesus name only, but technically I was, just because the one baptizing me did not explicitly say "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus", I was still baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit which is JESUS!

I also participated in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to Romans 6:3-4

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

And what about the Ethiopian Eunuch?

He was baptized by Philip the Evangelist and the text does not say the Eunuch was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 8:36-38

"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him."

Was the Eunuch's baptism valid?

I certainly believe it was, the Eunuch may not have received the Holy Spirit at that point though, because earlier in the chapter we see those who were baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' as the text says, but did not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL the apostles were called down and they land hands on the people and prayed for them to be baptized with the Spirit.

Perhaps God allowed these events to be recorded exactly as they happened so that we don't become too dogmatic about baptism or receiving the Holy Spirit? Or maybe Philip did say, 'in Jesus name', but it's not recorded?

Like Cornelius, his family, and the rest of the people in his house received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water, and not one hand was laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit.

So those who say, Trinitarians for example, should be re-baptized in Jesus name should re-think their beliefs in light of the scriptures, that show us God doesn't do things exactly the same way every time and that we don't need to get stuck in some formulaic tradition that may cause us to believe that if a person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, has an invalid baptism.

Dude, just be water baptized in Jesus name, it identifies you with Him, and Him alone. You're currently identified with the Trinity doctrine. Lol

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Dude, just be water baptized in Jesus name, it identifies you with Him, and Him alone. You're currently identified with the Trinity doctrine. Lol

Contextually, he is NOT being identified with the Trinity doctrine. He is being identified with the authority that the Father (the One True God) gave to his Son, Jesus of Nazareth by exalting him, and is operating in believers who are indwelt by the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Christ.

[TyronePalmer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Dude, just be water baptized in Jesus name, it identifies you with Him, and Him alone. You're currently identified with the Trinity doctrine. Lol

Exactly why I posted this topic, Jesus knows my heart, as He did when I was baptized. So you are saying I'm identified with a doctrine and not Jesus Christ at all, the One whom I confessed and believed upon with all my heart when I got baptized.

As long as the believer has been taught Jesus beforehand and knows the reason he/she is being baptized, it shouldn't matter if the believer is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Jesus, to me they are the same.

What should matter is how GOD views the heart and the baptism, not what man thinks.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TyronePalmer

Exactly why I posted this topic, Jesus knows my heart, as He did when I was baptized. So you are saying I'm identified with a doctrine and not Jesus Christ at all, the One whom I confessed and believed upon with all my heart when I got baptized.

As long as the believer has been taught Jesus beforehand and knows the reason he/she is being baptized, it shouldn't matter if the believer is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Jesus, to me they are the same.

What should matter is how GOD views the heart and the baptism, not what man thinks.

Yes, God alone knows your heart, thoughts, and intentions. I can't judge those things.

What I do know is that the triune baptism didn't exist until the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It's not Apostolic in origin. In fact, the Trinity doctrine is just pagan/Christian synchronization. And the triune baptism began as a part of this synchronization.

If you know the proper, biblical, Apostolic way, there's really no excuse.

If you wish to take your chances with holding to your triune baptism, that's entirely your choice. But I can't offer you any assurance outside of Acts 2:38.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes, God alone knows your heart, thoughts, and intentions. I can't judge those things.

What I do know is that the triune baptism didn't exist until the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It's not Apostolic in origin. In fact, the Trinity doctrine is just pagan/Christian synchronization. And the triune baptism began as a part of this synchronization.

If you know the proper, biblical, Apostolic way, there's really no excuse.

If you wish to take your chances with holding to your triune baptism, that's entirely your choice. But I can't offer you any assurance outside of Acts 2:38.

The idea that the words of the baptizer remitted sin was the beginning of the error. It then devolved further from there.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The idea that the words of the baptizer remitted sin was the beginning of the error. It then devolved further from there.

The sinner repents.
There Church water baptizes.
The Lord fills with the Sprit.

All play key rolls.

John 20:22-23 King James Version (KJV)
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This is a part of the closing of John, where the Great Commission is in the other Gospels.

Luke put it this way:

Luke 24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

The elders of the church have authority to remit sin in accordance to the sinner's willingness to obey the Gospel. And it is done through the name.