No Jesus Name Invoked, No Valid Baptism?

[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.

[Esaias]

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
(Matthew 28:19)

πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος,

EIS TO ONOMA - literally, INTO THE NAME. We are to baptise people INTO THE NAME.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 2:38)

Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς· μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος.

EPI TO ONOMATI - literally, UPON THE NAME. Each of us is to be baptised UPON THE NAME.

These constructions suggests more than merely "in the name". They suggest INTO the name and UPON the name, both of which suggest more than merely "in the authority of". Jesus and Peter could have easily said "baptised in the authority of" but they did not say that. When you combine James 2:7 and Acts 15:17, it is clear - there is an oral invocation of the name which is called upon or "invoked over" the one being baptised. The one being baptised is thus baptised upon the name (that is, upon the oral invocation of the name) and the church is to baptise people into the name (which requires a declaration, an oral statement as to the purpose and intent of the baptism). This is why Christian baptism requires TWO PEOPLE. It is why people are told to LET THEMSELVES BE BAPTISED, not "baptise yourselves".

This is also why there is ZERO RECORD of any innovation whereby somebody introduced the idea of a baptismal formula. When the trinitarian controversy began, and the trinitarian formulas were introduced (see Justin Martyr, for example), there was no dispute about whether there ought to be a formula or not, there was only dispute about WHAT FORMULA TO USE. That issue continued non-stop all the way up to the middle of the Reformation period, and still continues today.

There is a Hebraism involved, regarding the people "called by my name" or called by the name of the Lord. That old testament idea whereby Israel, the people of God, are the people "called by His Name", originates from the Aaronic blessing instituted by God through Moses:

Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.
(Numbers 6:23-27)

The Aaronic blessing was an oral invocation of the name of Jehovah, and this official invocation of the name of Jehovah upon the children of Israel was how God said "and you will PUT MY NAME UPON THEM."

The Mosaic blessing concludes as follows:

The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways. And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.
(Deuteronomy 28:9-10)

The Greek (used by the apostles) is interesting here:

And all the nations of the earth shall see thee, that the name of the Lord is called upon thee, and they shall stand in awe of thee. (Brenton's English Translation of the LXX)

Being the people who are "called by the name of the Lord" means the people upon whom the Lord's name has been invoked or called. Under the Old covenant this was accomplished by means of the Aaronic blessing. Under the New covenant it is accomplished in baptism when the church (the body of Christ, His earthly representatives in this world) declare the remission of sins of the convert by means of baptising the convert into the NAME OF THE LORD.

Thus, John 20:23 is fulfilled:

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
(John 20:23)

The church remits sins by baptising converts into the name of the Lord. It is not that the church sovereignly pardons sinners (as in the catholic sacramental view) but rather that by baptism the convert is identified with Christ and enters into the remission of their sins, and the church is who baptises people. therefore, whose soever sins the church remits, they are remitted unto them (that is, whoever the church admits to baptism enters the remission of sins), and whose soever sins the church retains, they are retained (that is, whoever the church refuses to baptise does NOT enter into identification with Christ and does NOT enter into remission of sins). And this is clearly exemplified by Peter's words in his visit to Cornelius:

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(Acts 10:47)

Obviously, Peter DID INDEED acknowledge and believe that the church COULD FORBID BAPTISM to someone deemed unrepentant or defective in their profession of faith. Phillip's encounter withe Ethiopian eunuch verifies this:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(Acts 8:35-37)

The eunuch could not be baptised by himself, he required Phillip to do it. And he asks "what hinders me?" That is, what objections are there that would prevent me from being baptised? And Phillip gave him the prerequisite: IF you believe with all your heart THEN YOU MAY BE BAPTISED, but NOT UNLESS YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART. If the eunuch did not believe with all his heart then Phillip would have no AUTHORITY to baptise, and would have REFUSED TO BAPTISE him. And the eunuch's sins would have been RETAINED.

Those who claim "oh this is catholic sacramentalism" do not know what they are talking about. The catholic doctrine of the sacrament is that the church has a treasury (like a bank account) of grace and merit that it can dispense to whom it will, with efficacious results. Thus, they baptise infants, give last rites, hold confession, command penance, and so on and so forth. This is totally different from the apostolic and bible doctrine of the church's role in bringing salvation to the lost. The church is commissioned with the task of making disciples and baptising them into the name of God. It is tasked with the purpose and mission of proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to all and sundry and receiving into fellowship via baptism all who believe that message. It is also tasked with refusing entrance to those who REFUSE TO BELIEVE. When the church does it's job, by baptising those responding to the Gospel, and by refusing baptism to those who do not believe with all their heart, then the church fulfills John 20:23.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

If you think this verse is referring to water baptism, then we should not mock Catholics for confession booths. If I have the power to forgive in baptism, then I also have the power to forgive the transgression of a believer.

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.

All this is saying is that we go in his authority (name) preaching repentance and the remission of sins.

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.

There is no scriptural basis for this. It is pure Catholicism. Seriously, build a confession booth.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
(Matthew 28:19)

πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος,

EIS TO ONOMA - literally, INTO THE NAME. We are to baptise people INTO THE NAME.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 2:38)

Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς· μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος.

EPI TO ONOMATI - literally, UPON THE NAME. Each of us is to be baptised UPON THE NAME.

These constructions suggests more than merely "in the name". They suggest INTO the name and UPON the name, both of which suggest more than merely "in the authority of". Jesus and Peter could have easily said "baptised in the authority of" but they did not say that. When you combine James 2:7 and Acts 15:17, it is clear - there is an oral invocation of the name which is called upon or "invoked over" the one being baptised. The one being baptised is thus baptised upon the name (that is, upon the oral invocation of the name) and the church is to baptise people into the name (which requires a declaration, an oral statement as to the purpose and intent of the baptism). This is why Christian baptism requires TWO PEOPLE. It is why people are told to LET THEMSELVES BE BAPTISED, not "baptise yourselves".

This is also why there is ZERO RECORD of any innovation whereby somebody introduced the idea of a baptismal formula. When the trinitarian controversy began, and the trinitarian formulas were introduced (see Justin Martyr, for example), there was no dispute about whether there ought to be a formula or not, there was only dispute about WHAT FORMULA TO USE. That issue continued non-stop all the way up to the middle of the Reformation period, and still continues today.

There is a Hebraism involved, regarding the people "called by my name" or called by the name of the Lord. That old testament idea whereby Israel, the people of God, are the people "called by His Name", originates from the Aaronic blessing instituted by God through Moses:

Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.
(Numbers 6:23-27)

The Aaronic blessing was an oral invocation of the name of Jehovah, and this official invocation of the name of Jehovah upon the children of Israel was how God said "and you will PUT MY NAME UPON THEM."


Several things here. First, this was not an ongoing practice to be institutionalized by the New Testament Church.

Two, it was limited to a few men having the authority to carry it out, namely priests.

Three, It was for people already in a covenant relationship with God.

Four, it was not for the remission of sins.

Five, there is nothing the Apostles preached concerning baptism and the remission of sins that even remotely parallels this incident. Baptism is about having your sins forgiven because you believed what God said concerning his Son, that he has been made both Lord and Christ. It has nothing to do with speaking God's name over people. God gives you his name when he adopts you by Spirit baptism.

And yet, many Apostolics use this as a proof text for connecting the forgiveness of sins with "taking on the name in baptism as a baptizer speaks it over you." Horrible, horrible soteriology and hermeneutics.

The Mosaic blessing concludes as follows:

The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways. And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.
(Deuteronomy 28:9-10)

The Greek (used by the apostles) is interesting here:

And all the nations of the earth shall see thee, that the name of the Lord is called upon thee, and they shall stand in awe of thee. (Brenton's English Translation of the LXX)

Being the people who are "called by the name of the Lord" means the people upon whom the Lord's name has been invoked or called. Under the Old covenant this was accomplished by means of the Aaronic blessing. Under the New covenant it is accomplished in baptism when the church (the body of Christ, His earthly representatives in this world) declare the remission of sins of the convert by means of baptising the convert into the NAME OF THE LORD.

Thus, John 20:23 is fulfilled:

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
(John 20:23)

The church remits sins by baptising converts into the name of the Lord. It is not that the church sovereignly pardons sinners (as in the catholic sacramental view) but rather that by baptism the convert is identified with Christ and enters into the remission of their sins, and the church is who baptises people. therefore, whose soever sins the church remits, they are remitted unto them (that is, whoever the church admits to baptism enters the remission of sins), and whose soever sins the church retains, they are retained (that is, whoever the church refuses to baptise does NOT enter into identification with Christ and does NOT enter into remission of sins). And this is clearly exemplified by Peter's words in his visit to Cornelius:

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(Acts 10:47)

Obviously, Peter DID INDEED acknowledge and believe that the church COULD FORBID BAPTISM to someone deemed unrepentant or defective in their profession of faith. Phillip's encounter withe Ethiopian eunuch verifies this:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(Acts 8:35-37)

The eunuch could not be baptised by himself, he required Phillip to do it. And he asks "what hinders me?" That is, what objections are there that would prevent me from being baptised? And Phillip gave him the prerequisite: IF you believe with all your heart THEN YOU MAY BE BAPTISED, but NOT UNLESS YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART. If the eunuch did not believe with all his heart then Phillip would have no AUTHORITY to baptise, and would have REFUSED TO BAPTISE him. And the eunuch's sins would have been RETAINED.

Those who claim "oh this is catholic sacramentalism" do not know what they are talking about. The catholic doctrine of the sacrament is that the church has a treasury (like a bank account) of grace and merit that it can dispense to whom it will, with efficacious results. Thus, they baptise infants, give last rites, hold confession, command penance, and so on and so forth. This is totally different from the apostolic and bible doctrine of the church's role in bringing salvation to the lost. The church is commissioned with the task of making disciples and baptising them into the name of God. It is tasked with the purpose and mission of proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to all and sundry and receiving into fellowship via baptism all who believe that message. It is also tasked with refusing entrance to those who REFUSE TO BELIEVE. When the church does it's job, by baptising those responding to the Gospel, and by refusing baptism to those who do not believe with all their heart, then the church fulfills John 20:23.

Many Protestant groups have a form a baptismal invocation they claim remits sins. Though they may differ some from strict Catholic interpretation, they are branches of the same error, just as what many in the Apostolic ranks teach about "the name" is error.

[TyronePalmer]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Phillip's encounter withe Ethiopian eunuch verifies this:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(Acts 8:35-37)

The eunuch could not be baptised by himself, he required Phillip to do it. And he asks "what hinders me?" That is, what objections are there that would prevent me from being baptised? And Phillip gave him the prerequisite: IF you believe with all your heart THEN YOU MAY BE BAPTISED, but NOT UNLESS YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART. If the eunuch did not believe with all his heart then Phillip would have no AUTHORITY to baptise, and would have REFUSED TO BAPTISE him. And the eunuch's sins would have been RETAINED.

The text does not say that Philip invoked the name of Jesus, it was the Eunuch's belief and invocation of the name of Jesus, that caused Philip to respond by getting down in the water and baptizing him.

So if Philip did not invoke the name of Jesus is the Eunuch's baptism valid? Or maybe he did but it's just not recorded.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by TyronePalmer

The text does not say that Philip invoked the name of Jesus, it was the Eunuch's belief and invocation of the name of Jesus, that caused Philip to respond by getting down in the water and baptizing him.

And the Eunuch's invocation was the only one needed for his sins to be forgiven in baptism. Philip's invocation , whatever it was, was incidental.

So if Philip did not invoke the name of Jesus is the Eunuch's baptism valid?

He had been invoking the name of Jesus all through the Bible study. If he did not do it while dunking the guy, that did not make the baptism any less "in the name of Jesus".

Or maybe he did but it's just not recorded.

Sorry, I know you weren't talking to me.

[TyronePalmer]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Sorry, I know you weren't talking to me.

Totally agree with you!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TyronePalmer

The text does not say that Philip invoked the name of Jesus, it was the Eunuch's belief and invocation of the name of Jesus, that caused Philip to respond by getting down in the water and baptizing him.

So if Philip did not invoke the name of Jesus is the Eunuch's baptism valid? Or maybe he did but it's just not recorded.

You cannot prove Phillip did NOT speak the name of Jesus, which is what you would have to do for your point to be valid.

I brought up the eunuch to prove that baptism requires two people, and that baptism can be refused to someone on the basis of a defective profession of faith. That is all.

James 2:7 proves the name is invoked upon or over the believer. So does Acts 15:17. The Aaronic blessing proves the name of the LORD is put upon His people via an actual oral invocation of the ministry. The Greek text of Deuteronomy 28:9-10 proves that the phrase "called by My Name" is a Hebraism referring to having had the name of Jehovah actually invoked upon or called upon the people.

Jesus did not authorise the trinitarian baptism or its formula. Therefore, the trinitarian baptism and its formula cannot be performed "in the authority of Christ" (since He never authorised it).

The historical record confirms all this, that the trinitarian baptism and its formula were post apostolic developments derived entirely from trinitarian theological developments, and that the original formula was in the name of Jesus Christ.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Many Protestant groups have a form a baptismal invocation they claim remits sins. Though they may differ some from strict Catholic interpretation, they are branches of the same error, just as what many in the Apostolic ranks teach about "the name" is error.

Unproven claims from you, as usual. "Spit" all you want, the facts remain.