Our Baptism Mode!!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Who said the words of our Lord were offensive? Not me. Not anyone here that I have read.

I don't know about you, but *I* am one of those 'Jesus only' Pentecostals, meaning I believe the name of Jesus is sufficient.

We have historically intentionally REFUSED to use the trinitarian formula because:

1. It is not commanded.

2. It is not a valid baptismal formula.

3. It is the hallmark symbol of trinitarian religion.

It would perhaps be one thing to tell a candidate for baptism 'Jesus commanded us to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And we understand that name to be JESUS CHRIST and so, I now baptise you in the name of JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins...'

BUT, to say 'I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is JESUS CHRIST' is unclear, vague, potentially misleading, and worst of all an obvious compromise with the trinitarian formula.

It is unclear and vague as to what is actually the formula - the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost'? Or the NAME of 'JESUS CHRIST'? It is unclear as to whether one holds to a Biblical view of God and Christ or whether one has accepted that trinitarian views are 'acceptable'.

It is potentially misleading, because it may lead a person to think that trinitarian baptism is acceptable, or that either form is acceptable.

It is a compromise with the trinitarian formula because those who propose such hybrid formulas do not have the faith to stand on the name of JESUS CHRIST ALONE, or else do not wish to offend trinitarians.

I do not know your husband's heart. But would he be willing to use ONLY the name of our Lord in baptising? Or would he feel 'unsure' as if he may have left something out?

THAT is the key, in my opinion.

Amen there is NO example in Acts nor any reference in the Epistles to a tri-une formula.