The Baptismal Formula; is it “Jesus Christ?”
1. That the exact wordings, and even the Greek prepositions differ widely between the so called baptismal proof texts found at
Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19 is obviously devastating to your position. In
Acts 2 we read “in (epi) the name Jesus Christ,” at
Acts 8 and 19 “in (eis) the name Lord Jesus,” and lastly at
Acts 10 where we read “in (ev) the name Lord.” If a baptismal formula were really being given here, then it would not differ so widely between its various usages in
Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19.
2. The only explanation, is that the word “name” (onoma) means “authority,” as in “stop in the name of the law,” and that this is how Luke is using the term “onoma.” Notice that “name” (onoma) is used this way by Luke in
Acts 4:7, where it is juxtaposed with the word “power.”
3. The reference to the Holy Spirit in
Acts 19:2-3, further confirms
Matthew 28:19 as baptism being upon the authority of the one God who is not simply Jesus, but is Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Paul meets certain disciples of John, and asks if they received the Holy Spirit since they believed. When they reply that they don't know who the Holy Spirit is (
Acts 19:2), Paul then immediately asks how then were you baptised (verse 3). He did this because he knew that the words Holy Spirit, referred to
Matthew 28:19. So if “Jesus Christ” is the proper baptismal formula, then Paul's question “into what then were you baptised?” Does not make any sense. Because it would be a complete change of subject from his question, onto these Jewish disciples in the previous verse.
4. To baptise upon the name of the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (
Matthew 28:19), is to baptise according to
Acts 2:38, because both these passages imply the authority for baptism.
5. You cannot understand the baptismal formula, apart from a study of the Aaronic blessing formula in
Numbers 6. This specific blessing was used by the priests constantly in the Old Testament Scripture, but when it is it is simply referred to in a shortened summary form. This is why we read of Levi blessing the people “in his name” (
Deuteronomy 10:8), and the priests being commanded “to bless in the name of the LORD,” (
Deuteronomy 21:50) or “to give a blessing in his name forever.” (
1st Chronicles 23:13). God does not need to slavishly repeat the Aaronic blessing word for word, every time that it was used, and so this shortened form “in his name” or “in the name of the Lord” refers back to the
Numbers 6 formula. So you can see that your baptismal passages in Acts, mirror the way that the Aaronic blessing formula was used.
6. My main problem with your position is not that I disagree with it, but that the implications are that Trinitarians like myself are not saved (and so too are Luther, Wesley and Jonathan Edwards in hell). But in my opinion our love towards God, so our hearts count more than religious works, and so I’m certain that God will recognise sprinkling, immersion or pouring, and even if no formula or an incorrect formula of words is used. However you can’t say this of Trinitarians, and so you must claim that we’re lost and going to hell, which is why you have to go on and on about baptism all the time, and getting the mode and formula just right. So it isn’t your constant insistence upon mode of baptism which I find so objectionable, it is rather the ‘hard hearted dogmatism’ which claims that God will ........ a man to hell on a mere technicality. Love is not enough, and neither is the cross or even the reception of the Holy Spirit. But our works must be exactly right in order to get us into heaven, because our relationship with God starts and is even based upon our own deeds; namely correct baptism and speaking in tongues. So the God of Oneness only loves us through our works for him, yet my Bible says that God loves and justifies the ungodly, and not the Godly: see
Romans 4:5.
Linear Mode
