Should you be baptized invoking the name of Jesus, rather than repeating "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt thinks the name is YHWH, which he can't pronounce with any confidence.

You say the name is: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. You realize that this is the only name in the history of mankind that has commas? It's sheer nonsense.

Plus, there is nowhere in the NT where this is written like that. God is not the author of confusion.

The name is JESUS, just like the apostles baptized. "All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily and we are complete in him". Colossians 2:9-10.
ALL Christians since Pentecost have been baptized in the name Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19.
 
Here are examples of people in the Bible being baptized by invoking the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost":

Space intentionally left blank because there are none.

Here are examples of people in the Bible being baptized by invoking the name of Jesus:

Jews:

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ - Acts 2:38

Samaritans:
They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus - Acts 8:16

Gentiles:
and he (Peter) commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus - Acts 10:48

Disciples of John being baptized AGAIN:
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus - Acts 19:5

Saul:
Arise and be baptized calling on the Lord - Acts 22:16


Peter taught "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved - Acts 4:12

Paul taught "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" - Col 3:17

Paul taught in his great book on FAITH - "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into death... - Romans 6:3-5


Preaching Christ, baptizing in his name, praying in his name, it's always all about JESUS for the early church and Apostles.

"All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily" (Colossian 2:9)

The SINGULAR NAME of MATTHEW 28:19 is JESUS, as shown by how the Apostles baptized and taught the very meaning of baptism into Christ.

For those of you into grammar, note below that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all modify the singular NAME. What is that Name? The Apostle said JESUS.
R.d9a9c5b8f6dabdfc5fa67bbcd3ecd4c4
Your question presupposes a standard ritual for performing baptisms that is known to those Jesus is speaking to...may I ask you what this ritual is, who it is carried out, and where you came by your information? Also, grammatically speaking, this is onoma (name) in the Greek could well be what is known as an "ellipis," which in short would indicate that it actually means "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," not some other name. But without an answer to my questions what happened at a baptism in the NT is pure speculation...at least Biblically speaking.

TheLayman
 
Your question presupposes a standard ritual for performing baptisms that is known to those Jesus is speaking to...may I ask you what this ritual is, who it is carried out, and where you came by your information? Also, grammatically speaking, this is onoma (name) in the Greek could well be what is known as an "ellipis," which in short would indicate that it actually means "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," not some other name. But without an answer to my questions what happened at a baptism in the NT is pure speculation...at least Biblically speaking.

TheLayman

1. Prerequisites for water baptism: Candidate must have faith in Christ and repentance towards God (Acts 8:37; Acts 2:38; Romans 6)

2. Immersion in water since the term baptism means immerse, dip, submerge. English Bible translators didn't translate the term but transliterated it.

3. The name of Jesus is invoked at baptism. Acts 19 shows that there was a clear distinction between John's baptism and Christian baptism in Jesus name. Acts 22:16 shows that actually speaking out the name of Jesus was done. This is in contradiction to those who teach Luke only meant for us to understand the baptisms in Acts to only mean they were done under the authority of Jesus. How to better exercise authority in his name than by speaking out his name? Obviously and logically, there was a difference between how Paul baptized them in Acts 19 and how John baptized them previously. Otherwise, what's the point of getting baptized again the same way? Luke makes it a point to say that they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" to show this difference with John's baptism.

Paul taught "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" - Col 3:17
For example, Christians are to pray in Jesus name. When the Apostles prayed, they invoked the name of Jesus (example Acts 3:1-5). When they cast out demons they invoked the name of Jesus. Paul didn't mean for us to get silly or hypocritical about saying the name of Jesus in prayer by making a fuss over whether we need to prefix the name with "Lord" or add "Christ" or add "of Nazareth". The point is to use his name.

Romans 6 makes it clear that it identifies us with the death of the man Jesus Christ and his burial. The burial aspect of Romans 6 points directly to baptism as immersion for no one buries someone by sprinking a handful of dirt on them. Sprinking and Pouring breaks the typology as a burial that Paul established in Romans 6 and contradicts the very meaning of batizo. The singular name of Jesus is invoked because he is the one who died for us. This is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 1:13. Literally repeating Matthew 28:19 as a formula as practiced by Trinitarians often ignores or misdirects the meaning of Romans 6 because Trinitarians make it into a ritual about supposed persons in the Godhead and not a burial with Christ.

For the Apostles it was all about Jesus all the time.
 
Last edited:
1. Prerequisites for water baptism: Candidate must have faith in Christ and repentance towards God (Acts 8:37; Acts 2:38; Romans 6)

2. Immersion in water since the term baptism means immerse, dip, submerge. English Bible translators didn't translate the term but transliterated it.

3. The name of Jesus is invoked at baptism. Acts 19 shows that there was a clear distinction between John's baptism and Christian baptism in Jesus name. Acts 22:16 shows that actually speaking out the name of Jesus was done. This is in contradiction to those who teach Luke only meant for us to understand the baptisms in Acts to only mean they were done under the authority of Jesus. How to better exercise authority in his name than by speaking out his name? Obviously and logically, there was a difference between how Paul baptized them in Acts 19 and how John baptized them previously. Otherwise, what's the point of getting baptized again the same way? Luke makes it a point to say that they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" to show this difference with John's baptism.

Paul taught "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" - Col 3:17
For example, Christians are to pray in Jesus name. When the Apostles prayed, they invoked the name of Jesus (example Acts 3:1-5). When they cast out demons they invoked the name of Jesus. Paul didn't mean for us to get silly or hypocritical about saying the name of Jesus in prayer by making a fuss over whether we need to prefix the name with "Lord" or add "Christ" or add "of Nazareth". The point is to use his name.

Romans 6 makes it clear that it identifies us with the death of the man Jesus Christ and his burial. The burial aspect of Romans 6 points directly to baptism as immersion for no one buries someone by sprinking a handful of dirt on them. Sprinking and Pouring breaks the typology as a burial that Paul established in Romans 6 and contradicts the very meaning of batizo. The singular name of Jesus is invoked because he is the one who died for us. This is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 1:13. Literally repeating Matthew 28:19 as a formula as practiced by Trinitarians often ignores or misdirects the meaning of Romans 6 because Trinitarians make it into a ritual about supposed persons in the Godhead and not a burial with Christ.

For the Apostles it was all about Jesus all the time.
So other than the "candidate" professing faith in Christ and repentance towards God; baptism being by "immersion" and the name of "Jesus" being spoken at some point by someone, you have no idea about the actual method/form/ritual of baptism in the early church, is that right?

TheLayman
 
So other than the "candidate" professing faith in Christ and repentance towards God; baptism being by "immersion" and the name of "Jesus" being spoken at some point by someone, you have no idea about the actual method/form/ritual of baptism in the early church, is that right?

TheLayman

What exactly don't you understand? You sound like the fellow behind the steering wheel who has a chip on his shoulder arguing with a police officer about the fine points of the constitution. You know enough to try to muddle what is not difficult.
 
What is so hard about understanding that what Jesus said of himself and his God?

John 12:49 KJV: For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

John 7:16. Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

John 5 :17 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 5:19. “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
 
What exactly don't you understand? You sound like the fellow behind the steering wheel who has a chip on his shoulder arguing with a police officer about the fine points of the constitution. You know enough to try to muddle what is not difficult.
You always resort to the really stupid ad homs Adreas...its your signature...and why I don't usually try to have and intelligent adult conversation with you. As the saying goes,

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”​

The reason I asked you these questions is that it is apparent that you presuppose that these baptisms in Scripture took place by the same method/ritual used in your church. Did you ever notice there was no instruction on the process of baptizing and yet it seemed to be understood? Is it possible that Jews were already somewhat familiar with baptisms? And what about Acts 22:16:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Do you think this was only for Paul and that others had to be immersed by their pastors with them invoking something using the name of Jesus? Do you think Paul just said, "I baptize myself in the name of Jesus." It's interesting that once someone has asked you for a little detail that, as I said, you resort to ad homs as usual. I have no reason or desire to engage with people such as yourself so if you actually had something intelligent to say I'm no longer interested (though I'm sure you have nothing of interest because if you had you would have posted it instead offering offensive drivel).

TheLayman
 
Last edited:
1. Prerequisites for water baptism: Candidate must have faith in Christ and repentance towards God (Acts 8:37; Acts 2:38; Romans 6)

2. Immersion in water since the term baptism means immerse, dip, submerge. English Bible translators didn't translate the term but transliterated it.

3. The name of Jesus is invoked at baptism. Acts 19 shows that there was a clear distinction between John's baptism and Christian baptism in Jesus name. Acts 22:16 shows that actually speaking out the name of Jesus was done. This is in contradiction to those who teach Luke only meant for us to understand the baptisms in Acts to only mean they were done under the authority of Jesus. How to better exercise authority in his name than by speaking out his name? Obviously and logically, there was a difference between how Paul baptized them in Acts 19 and how John baptized them previously. Otherwise, what's the point of getting baptized again the same way? Luke makes it a point to say that they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" to show this difference with John's baptism.

Paul taught "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" - Col 3:17
For example, Christians are to pray in Jesus name. When the Apostles prayed, they invoked the name of Jesus (example Acts 3:1-5). When they cast out demons they invoked the name of Jesus. Paul didn't mean for us to get silly or hypocritical about saying the name of Jesus in prayer by making a fuss over whether we need to prefix the name with "Lord" or add "Christ" or add "of Nazareth". The point is to use his name.

Romans 6 makes it clear that it identifies us with the death of the man Jesus Christ and his burial. The burial aspect of Romans 6 points directly to baptism as immersion for no one buries someone by sprinking a handful of dirt on them. Sprinking and Pouring breaks the typology as a burial that Paul established in Romans 6 and contradicts the very meaning of batizo. The singular name of Jesus is invoked because he is the one who died for us. This is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 1:13. Literally repeating Matthew 28:19 as a formula as practiced by Trinitarians often ignores or misdirects the meaning of Romans 6 because Trinitarians make it into a ritual about supposed persons in the Godhead and not a burial with Christ.

For the Apostles it was all about Jesus all the time.
I have to ask, according to you is water baptism a requirment of salvation? In other words, do you have to be water baptized to be saved?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
I'm asking Andreas the question?

In Him,
james
Are you asking her if you’re asking Andreas the question?

Are you not sure?

Or do you mean that you just can’t believe that you’re actually asking Andreas the question, and you don’t know what’s wrong with you?
 
The reason I asked you these questions is that it is apparent that you presuppose that these baptisms in Scripture took place by the same method/ritual used in your church. Did you ever notice there was no instruction on the process of baptizing and yet it seemed to be understood? Is it possible that Jews were already somewhat familiar with baptisms? And what about Acts 22:16:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Do you think this was only for Paul and that others had to be immersed by their pastors with them invoking something using the name of Jesus? Do you think Paul just said, "I baptize myself in the name of Jesus." It's interesting that once someone has asked you for a little detail that, as I said, you resort to ad homs as usual. I have no reason or desire to engage with people such as yourself so if you actually had something intelligent to say I'm no longer interested (though I'm sure you have nothing of interest because if you had you would have posted it instead offering offensive drivel).

If you could throw some shade on baptism in Jesus name you would. This is your objective.

We pattern our baptism on what the early church did as recorded in the Bible. It is our objective to not leave those things out because baptism was commanded by Jesus. For example, Peter said to Repent. We require someone to have repented. People in the Bible had to believe first, so we don't baptize babies, only believers. They baptized invoking the name of Jesus, so we do that. We immerse because that is what baptism means and how it was practiced in the Bible. They also didn't make it overly complex. For example, Phillip baptized the Ethiopian in the wilderness after teaching him on his chariot about Jesus.

The Jews were certainly familiar with baptism because of John the Baptist! Nicodemus would have been familiar with the Jewish Mikvah. The gentiles probably not so much if any.

You are trying to find fault. Did I say that "their pastors" had to baptize them? Ananias doesn't appear to be a Pastor. We don't see people baptizing themselves in Acts. Do I sense that you have an axe to grind against Pastors?
 
I have to ask, according to you is water baptism a requirment of salvation? In other words, do you have to be water baptized to be saved?

IN GOD THE SON,
james

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (the words of Jesus, Mark 16:16)
 
1. Prerequisites for water baptism: Candidate must have faith in Christ and repentance towards God (Acts 8:37; Acts 2:38; Romans 6)

2. Immersion in water since the term baptism means immerse, dip, submerge. English Bible translators didn't translate the term but transliterated it.

3. The name of Jesus is invoked at baptism. Acts 19 shows that there was a clear distinction between John's baptism and Christian baptism in Jesus name. Acts 22:16 shows that actually speaking out the name of Jesus was done. This is in contradiction to those who teach Luke only meant for us to understand the baptisms in Acts to only mean they were done under the authority of Jesus. How to better exercise authority in his name than by speaking out his name? Obviously and logically, there was a difference between how Paul baptized them in Acts 19 and how John baptized them previously. Otherwise, what's the point of getting baptized again the same way? Luke makes it a point to say that they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" to show this difference with John's baptism.

Paul taught "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" - Col 3:17
For example, Christians are to pray in Jesus name. When the Apostles prayed, they invoked the name of Jesus (example Acts 3:1-5). When they cast out demons they invoked the name of Jesus. Paul didn't mean for us to get silly or hypocritical about saying the name of Jesus in prayer by making a fuss over whether we need to prefix the name with "Lord" or add "Christ" or add "of Nazareth". The point is to use his name.

Romans 6 makes it clear that it identifies us with the death of the man Jesus Christ and his burial. The burial aspect of Romans 6 points directly to baptism as immersion for no one buries someone by sprinking a handful of dirt on them. Sprinking and Pouring breaks the typology as a burial that Paul established in Romans 6 and contradicts the very meaning of batizo. The singular name of Jesus is invoked because he is the one who died for us. This is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 1:13. Literally repeating Matthew 28:19 as a formula as practiced by Trinitarians often ignores or misdirects the meaning of Romans 6 because Trinitarians make it into a ritual about supposed persons in the Godhead and not a burial with Christ.

For the Apostles it was all about Jesus all the time.
The majority of churches baptize by immersion in the name Jesus commanded us to baptize them in Matthew 28:19.
 
What is so hard about understanding that what Jesus said of himself and his God?

John 12:49 KJV: For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

John 7:16. Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

John 5 :17 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 5:19. “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
IOW the judgement, doctrine, works of Father and Son are IDENTICAL.
 
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (the words of Jesus, Mark 16:16)
Google "ending of Mark 16."

Mark quit writing at verse 8.

Water baptism is not a requirement for salvation. People can get water baptized if they want to, but the one baptism (Eph 4:5) that matters is baptism in holy spirit (1 Cor 12:13). The Christian new birth.
 
Back
Top