Matthew 28:19 (Misinterpreted Scriptures)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…
Misinterpretation: The UPC points out that this Scripture says to baptize in the Name (singular). They go on to say that the Name is Jesus, and they quote Acts 2:38 as proof (because Peter instructed people to be baptized in the Name of Jesus). Unfortunately, the UPC believes that if a person was baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then their baptism was invalid and they are not truly saved.
Facts: I will not open up a debate on Oneness vs. the Trinity here, or a debate on whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. Instead, I will say that I really do not think that Jesus is going to send the majority of His followers to hell for obeying Him. Think about that for a moment. Is Jesus really going to take a person who love Him and faithfully served Him, but was baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and send them to hell—especially when He was the one who told them to be baptized that way? Is that really the kind of God that we serve?
Furthermore, if the UPC view is true then the majority of so-called Christians for the last 2,000 years have gone to hell. I find it hard to believe that Jesus came to Earth, suffered, died, was buried, and rose again, just so that He could trick almost all of His followers into going to hell.
Finally, the UPC often claims that Christians baptized in the Name of Jesus until the Roman Catholic church came on the scene. They believe that the Roman Catholic church corrupted Christianity with the doctrine of the Trinity (which the UPC equates with polytheism) and a false baptism. However, recent historical discoveries make it clear that the early Church was baptizing people in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost at a very early date. The Didache–written between c50-250 A.D.–instructs people to be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost1. This means that it is very possible that the early Church was already baptizing people in the Titles when the Apostle John was still alive!
References:
- Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson’s illustrated Bible dictionary.; Includes index ("Didache"). Nashville: T. Nelson. [↩]
May 19th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Josh,
During the days of Noah, there undoubtedly were other boats, yet, God chose only one boat to save Noah and his family. God chose to make only one plan for their salvation.
Was God unrighteous to those who would seek salvation by some other means? No. In each dispensation, God mercifully has provided mankind a way to escape impending judgment.
It is man’s responsibility to follow the plan of God.
I know some churches that batize in titles and in Jesus’ name as they are unsure of mode of baptism or are following the wishes of the “baptisee”.
Not to rush to the basics of scripture, but, we find in Ephesians 4:5 “One Lord, one faith, one baptism,”. One baptism means that there is only one baptism as there was only one ark.
Another interesting scripture is found in Romans 6:3
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” How were these believers baptized into Jesus and into his death and not baptized in his name?
The believers were not baptized into the death of the Father or Holy Ghost, only into Jesus’ death. Galatians 3:27 goes further on this subject and states, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Not to use a “candy-stick” of the UPCI, but we do see evidence of baptism in Jesus’ name in Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
I trust that this information is received well.
Sincerely,
Leonard Rafferty
June 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Hi, Leonard. I don’t normally respond to comments on this Web site for two reasons: First, I want to avoid starting a thread of debates; Second, my desire is that people would formulate their opinions. Because I desire people to formulate their own opinions I am delighted when people write comments on things that I have written, even when they are disagreeing with me :). I would like to think that I am humble enough to admit when I am wrong, so I welcome responses.
With that said, I noticed today that you wrote three very good comments on three different articles. I am going to break with my own tradition and respond to them–not because I disagree with all or part of what you wrote, but because you took the courtesy to write three comments that were very well-thought, and I think that deserves the courtesy of a response!
In reference to your comments on this post, I would like to reiterate my original point. Is Jesus going to send His followers to hell for obeying Him? In other words, did He tell us to be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, just to trick us? Was His goal to convolute the plan of salvation by telling us one thing when He really meant another?
If anyone thinks the answer to that question is “Yes,” then I think they serve a very different God than me.
So, why did the apostles baptize in the Name of Jesus and not in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Who knows. There have been many different theories advanced for that. The one that I hold to is that the phrase “In the Name of” meant “In the authority of.” If that is true then the apostles probably did not say anything over people when they baptized them. They may have even had people immerse themselves after a profession of faith, which is how the earliest post-New Testament writings describe baptism (I.e. the Didache and the writings of Hippolytus).
In short, the New Testament says *that* baptism was done, but it does not say *how* baptism was done. To find out exactly how baptism was done we have to turn to the earliest church writings, and, interestingly, those writings describe baptism being done by immersion, in the presence of two or more witnesses, after a person answered a series of questions professing their faith.
Be that as it may, my original point is still the same. Even if I am wrong about how the early church performed baptism, one thing is clear: I don’t think Jesus is going to send people to hell for obeying Him.
To reverse that point, think of it this way: Did Jesus know the future? He obviously did. So did He know that for 2,000 years people would baptize in the Titles? Obviously. Did He realize that He could have stopped that by just saying “be baptized in the Name of Jesus” instead of “be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”? I am sure that He did.
So if being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is going to send you to hell, then why did He tell people to do it?
I’ll leave that question up to the reader to answer.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Thank you,
My husband were just discussing this yesterday and came to the same basic conclusion. God LOVES us! We left UPC in the spring, and are So glad. God has been blessing us with truth and love. I feel blessed to believe that millions of believers are Not going to hell for being baptized in the titles, I might even see my beloved Grandmother in Heaven!
What a deliverance from such a condemning belief system. Thanks again for your site.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Ephesians 4:5- One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism. What a popular verse among apostolic ministers. I use to misquote this verse also. That is true this verse. There is One Lord. One Faith and One Baptism and the same write of the letter to the Ephesians wrote also that among the many teachings of the church there were 6 foundational doctrines of the church as found in Hebrews 6:1-3 and in that He Paul mentions the doctrine of baptisms (Plural).
John the baptist came baptizing in water unto repentance for the remission of sins but Jesus Christ came to baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire( Luke 3:16).
Jesus made and baptized more disciples then John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples(John 4:1-2). Does this verse mean he baptized his disciples or they baptized believers for the Lord? The way the verse reads is stating Jesus didnt baptize with water but His discisple did. Why? he would baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire.
The same writer Paul who wrote by inspiration Eph 4:5 also wrote by inspiration in ( 1 Cor 12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free: and have been made all to drink into one Spirit.
So the verse found in Eph 4:5-One Lord. One Faith. One Baptism is correct in that we are baptized into one (1) body by one (1) Spirit.
I hope this has edified and been a help.
In His Grip,
Rev. Josh Sparks.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
We should also relize that the first church did not have the Gosspels of Mattew, Mark, Luke, and John in written form for almost 100 years after the Acts 2:38 message.
How did this first church get baptized?
We should be careful brethren, just because the UPCI uses baptism as a “Sugar Stick” doesn’t make it wrong.
We should also relize that the Word we use to prove and disprove our salvation is very adament about Jesus name baptism.
Lets not judge people by sending them to hell, but also not sending them to heaven either. God is the judge of the quick and the dead so we should building and dismanteling the apostles doctrine just on the fact that a majority of peoples have gone so long in disagreeing with it.
Were some of us bound by the laws and traditions of men? Didn’t we think we were saved while were justified by the law. We found the revelations of so many errors in the UPC by rightly dividing the Word of truth.
Now we need to ask the hard question, the Apostles were fervent for Jesus name baptism, shouldn’t we be also?
These men walked hand and hand with Christ, Matt 28:19 was directed at them then at us. What did the do with this commandment? Acts 2:38 is still the answer to this question
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I say yes Baptism in Jesus name was the formula used in Water Baptism in every instance in the book of Acts. I personally do baptism in Jesus name and believe it is important. I wanted to clarify this. I have never left the Apostolic Teachings or Apostles Doctrine just the approach of the UPCI. I dont have to preach it in any way other then preaching it as absolute truth as found on the pages of God’s Word.
Good Post Brother.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:00 am
Your original 3 posts were not removed. The last two that were posted under a different name were deleted.
~ Josh
September 14th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Does someone here believe that baptism is what saves us? If a person has not had the opportunity to be baptized, but has Faith do you believe they go to hell? I think about the thief on the cross beside Jesus…
October 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Josh,
Praise the Lord dear brother! I share a very similar experience to your own. I have also came to the same conclusions about baptismal formulas. I would be appreciative if you would share the historical references. While I do not rely upon historical references to establish my theology, they are useful to help reinforce the conclusions we have came to.
About Baptism … I think that the missed point is simply this -there is no scriptural example of anyone using a baptismal invocation or formula. Now I know Acts 2, 8 10 and 19 reference being baptized in Jesus Name. Yet, it is an assumption that this means that a minister said “I now baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ.” We only have an actual description of only two baptisms in scripture; that of Jesus Himself and that of the Ethiopian eunuch. On neither of these occasions was a baptismal formula used. In the case of the eunuch, he was only asked for a confession of faith.
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.
The Apostle Paul was instructed to be baptized “calling on the name of the Lord.” This phrase is taken directly from the very same OT scripture that Peter preached from in Acts 2.
Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ NIV
The calling on the name of the Lord is on the part of the one being baptized and not the one baptizing. Consider:
Rom 10:8-13 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile — the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” NIV
Baptism was the mode of confession. It was the time when the believer “called on the name of the Lord.” This does not mean that a person has to confess Jesus at baptism in order for his baptism to be valid, but he must have believed with his heart and confessed with his mouth prior to baptism. In this matter anyone who believes in Jesus, calls on him for salvation and is then baptized because of their faith is being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ no matter what is said at baptism.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Leonard, Ephesians 4:5, Romans 6:3, & Galatians 3:27 all do say, “baptized into Christ”….but just by reading the context you can see that he wasn’t talking about a water baptism.
The bible lists several baptisms.
The baptism in the verses you’ve quoted are only referring to a person getting born-again. It has nothing to do with an actual water baptism.
However, there are several baptisms mentioned:
1) The new birth (John 3:3-7; ICorinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:5)
2) Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33)
3) Water baptism (Matthew 28:19)
Water baptism is separate from a person’s salvation.
April 11th, 2010 at 1:08 am
Hello my friend, You say the upc believes that if a person was baptized in the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost then their baptism was invalid……………………. Do what ? That totally not true. I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. When my pastor said Tony Phy I now baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, thus obeying Jesus in Matt. 28-19. My friend Josh Spiers I’m not throwing stones at you or argueing with you but I am concerned. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness,than,after they have known it,to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. To have this site whyileft.org formerly apostolic…………….Do you know the Lord is coming back after a church that has continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine. You say you spent your whole life in the movement.Why so much wasted time?At this time I don’t think its wasted,I think God is calling you back to his truth to a good apostolic Holy Ghost filled church(body of believers) God bless. your unknown friend Tony Phy
May 23rd, 2010 at 11:04 pm
The problem with Matthew 28:19 is it leaves the reader a few questions to consider. Lets just recap the scripture as we have seen it several times:
Matthew 28:19 (King James Version)
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
1st question: Why baptize?
2nd question: What’s the name?
3rd question: What’s the end result?
All 3 questions are simply answered by the salvation plan as it has been coined to be known by because it really is:
Acts 2:38 (King James Version)
38Then 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.
This scripture answers what baptism is for: the remission of sins
This scripture answers what name it done in: Jesus Christ
This scripture answers what’s the end result? Receive the gift of the holy spirit (his spirit)
God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) so at some point in the Bible, that scripture was going to be further clarified.
Now looking at both texts, 28:19 fails to mention the first step in this process. But 2:38 shows that step which is you must first repent, or turn away/think differently which also requires faith that God is just to forgive you of your sins. baptism is of none effect unless you have repented.
Baptism is more than a “mode” or just “confession”. Its apart of your salvation. Mark 16:16 qualifies that by saying:
Mark 16:16 (King James Version)
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Translated: he that obeys my word and is baptized shall be saved; but he that obeys not my word and is not baptized shall be damned.
So the next question you must ask yourself is what is the revelation of the name Jesus Christ. We can use Genesis right on down to Revelation to show that, but it can be summed up in this text:
Isaiah 9:6 (King James Version)
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
in that one verse we see the “Son (child)/Prince of Peace”, “Father (God)”, “holy spirit (Everlasting Father) which is God”. Both the God/Everlasting Father is in reference to the same spirit. All 3 seem to agree as one which lines up with (1 John 5:7,8): Father, Word (Son), Spirit agree as ONE, the Blood, Water, Spirit also agree as One in both Heaven and Earth.
And if you take a look at Isaiah 7:14, it reads:
Isaiah 7:14 (King James Version)
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
we only know of one virgin. But just like Jesus, Mary’s name was not revealed until the time appointed which we see in the gospels.
So 7:14 in conjunction with 9:6 is a fulfillment of 28:19. 28:19 is accomplished by Acts 2:38. See? Not confusing at all.
I agree with Tony. Jesus Christ is calling you back to him. He’s coming and very very soon, said it 3 times in Rev 22. The walk with Christ is not about the UPC. The organization is not the way to heaven, for Jesus Christ said he is the way, truth and life, not UPC (John 14:6). Just come on back home Brother, just come back home. Remember, it is God who hardens hearts. You spent time in this movement. He’s coming. Praying for you.
July 2nd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Josh,
I hope you don’t mind me using a quote from your previous statement.
(June 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am)
“Be that as it may, my original point is still the same. Even if I am wrong about how the early church performed baptism, one thing is clear: I don’t think Jesus is going to send people to hell for obeying Him.”
By stating the above, you have pitted the Acts (how things are done) of the Apostles -vs- what Jesus said. That is absolutely conflicting in any book.
If you are like me, I believe the word of God does not contradicts itself or is meant to confuse us (1 Cor 14:33). For this reason we need to read the whole bible and put the pieces together. That is why we are to “Seek” and not just read for the sake of reading something interesting.
Josh I will pray for you and I too love souls but we all make mistakes and you may want to “Pray” deeply on your stance. Remember there is …One Lord (Eph 4:5) …and his Name One (Zec 14:9).
It’s all about the “NAME” and I know you are fully aware of that fact.
Psalms 106:8, Jeremiah 23:6, Jeremiah 33:16, Matthew 10:22, Mark 13:13, Acts 2:21, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:13
Acts 4:7 – And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? [there is Power in His Name to Save!]
If a “Title” or “Formula” doesn’t matter then try to ask in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for God to “heal” or “cast out devils” and see if it works.
Remember “Trust in His Name” – with Jesus and you can never go wrong when it comes to Salvation. I do believe God when He says …baptism doth also now save us (1 Pet 3:21).
1 Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;
Peace & Love,
Mark — Houston, TX
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Mark, I appreciate your comments. It’s obvious that you put thought into your words and approached the subject with a humble attitude.
I don’t normally reply to comments, but I do want to clarify one thing: I have never pitted the apostles’ actions against Jesus’ words. Doing that would imply that the apostles were wrong, and I obviously don’t think they were. I take a very high view of Scripture–I believe that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is the infallible, inerrant word of God.
My point was only that Jesus did command that people be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Every manuscript of Matthew says the same thing. There can be no debate on that point. So if a person is baptized according to the literal words of Christ then they are not acting disobediently.
Did the apostles baptize in the Name of Jesus? Possibly. It’s also possible that Luke was using “the Name of” in the sense of “in the authority of.” That’s a very possible scenario, but it’s not the only possible scenario.
Either way. I am not the one pitting the words of Christ against the apostles. Anyone who believes that being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is insufficient for salvation is standing at odds with Scripture. They are, in effect, claiming that obeying Christ is not sufficient.
Please note that I will not debate in the comments. I very rarely stepped in. I felt the need to reply to your comment though because I felt that I was grossly misunderstood.
I hope I have clarified my view. I hope that it makes more sense now, even if you continue to disagree with it =)
In Christ,
- Josh S.
July 2nd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Hello Josh,
Thank you for your kind reply, I hope you accept my apology if I offended you in any way.
I have a sincere question for you regarding the following verse. The Lord put this in my heart awhile ago and how it applies to baptism and especially the words “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (question after verse)
Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
When a person baptizes another person and speaks out the words “I baptize you……” and the deed of the other person being baptized, does Col 3:17 apply?
Your comment is well appreciated.
Blessings to you,
Mark
July 2nd, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Mark, you didn’t offend me. I’ve developed pretty thick skin after 4 years of running this Web site. You wouldn’t believe some of the comments I get from people who claim to be Christian. I was actually accused of being the anti-christ just a couple of weeks ago.
Anyway, you might want to re-post your last comment in the “Colossians 3:17 (Misinterpreted Scriptures)” article (http://www.whyileft.org/frequently-misinterpreted-scriptures/colossians-317-misinterpreted-scriptures/). I address the point you just made in that article.
One thing to keep in mind is that I find both baptismal formulas Scriptural. I definitely don’t have a problem with people using a “in the Name of Jesus” formula. However, I do have a problem with people saying that you can’t be saved unless you’re baptized with those words said over you. I do not find that idea scriptural.
God bless,
- Josh S.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
It is true that Pentecostals have their own version of Calvanism and it is Acts 2:38. They say we have “the truth” when they reference Acts 2:38. Problem? the truth is not a doctrinal stance… the truth is a person! Jesus said, “I am the truth”. Notice in Revelations where the Ephesian church lost their love for ‘the truth’.
Anyways, to get on this baptism subject, I believe in Jesus name, but for a reason I have not seen mentioned here yet.
The only legal liquid to deal with sin is blood.
Hebrews 9:22 – Without blood there is no remission (The opposite is true, with blood their is remission)
Jesus died 2,000 years ago, how do we access his blood?
Leviticus 17:11 – Life is in the blood (Old Testament concept)
John 20:31 – Life is in his name (New Testament concept)
So if you have the name, you have life and if you have life, you have blood and if you have blood, you have remission.
Two other minor points:
1) I noticed that you mentioned the thief on the cross going to heaven without baptism, etc. – But the new covenant hadn’t begun yet (see Hebrews). The testator had to die for the new ‘will and testament’ to take affect.
2) What would you say of the experiences that people feel after being baptized? Surely you have been present for those experiences and have overheard them express how they felt. Also with speaking in tongues (and I know you can debate quite eloquently on this topic), but again, how can you explain the experience that people have when this takes place?
I also left the Pentecostal movement for quite some time because of an ignorant Pastor and church. I studied everything else from Eastern religion on. Though many have interesting things, etc., ultimately I was drawn to the experience itself and how I have never seen or heard of anything like it anywhere else.
Thank you for giving me the space, excited to hear back from you Josh…
August 20th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Dice,
I appreciate your comments. It’s obvious that you’ve put thought and research into your beliefs. It’s refreshing to see that! May we keep a unity of the spirit until we come to a unity of the faith…
I agree with you about “the Truth” being a person, not a doctrine. I’ve written the same thing many times to people. Of course, there is such a thing as true doctrine and false doctrine, but I understand the point that you are making and I wholeheartedly agree.
I also believe that life is only found in Jesus’ Name. The main difference is that I believe that the blood is applied at the point of belief/repentance (I do not believe the two can be separated).
Regarding the two “minor” points that you brought up:
1. I used to say the same thing that you did about the thief on the cross, until I realized that Jesus died before the thief did. John 19:31-33 records that the soldiers were going to break the legs of the three being crucified so that they would die before that Sabbath. The soldiers broke the legs of the two who were being crucified with Jesus, but when they came to Jesus they found that He was already dead. It stands to reason that the soldiers would not have broken the legs of the other two if they had been dead also, so we can conclude that Jesus died before the two who were being crucified with Him.
2. I do not want to diminish anyone’s experience, but I think it is important to remember that experiences should never be a test for truth. People in many religions have intense experiences, but it does not make those religions true. Take the Mormons, for example. They frequently tell people about “the burning in their bosom” that told them that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. This experience is so intense for them that they will tell you that they know Joseph Smith was a prophet, regardless of the amount of evidence you can show to the contrary.
Understand that I am not putting Oneness Pentecostalism in the same category as Mormonism; I am only making pointing out that emotions can be deceiving.
On the other hand, I do believe that any encounter with God will cause an emotional experience. But it is obvious that emotional experiences, regardless of their intensity and the sincerity of the person experiencing them, are not indicators of truth.
One thing that I would like to add is that I did not leave Oneness Pentecostalism because of my pastor or church. I am not sure from your wording whether you were just telling me that is why you left, or if you were saying that is why you thought I left. Regardless, I love all of my old pastors dearly. I am still very close with the last pastor that I had before I left. My reasons for leaving were purely Scriptural. I came to the conclusion through much study–accompanied by much prayer and fasting–that many of the Oneness Pentecostal doctrines are incorrect.
Thanks again for writing. I love to hear from people.
- Josh S.
August 26th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Simply put, the Apostles heard the Matthean Great Commission and baptized in a singular name, that of Jesus Christ. Luke’s Great Commission itself expressly mentions remission of sins through Jesus’ name. Mark’s Great Commission expressly mentions the signs done in Jesus’ name. Every single baptism or baptismal scripture in the New Covenant refers to Christ or does so in his name. Even the earliest non-scriptural example does so in the literal “name of the Lord Jesus Christ”- that was the baptism of Publius Decius in 100 AD, Rome. So…….
A) Jesus’ name was linked directly with sins being remitted as was baptism (Acts 2:38 [Every major translation agrees], Luke 24:47, Acts 4:12, Acts 22:16, 1 Corinthians 6:11, etc., etc., etc.)
B) To supplant the Apostles interpretation with that of the Catholic Church Fathers (Tertullian, Martyr) is to put Matyr and company in the seat of the Apostles just as the Pharisees put themselves in the seat of Moses. Again, in other words….
To alter the practices of the Apostles is to supplant the Word of God and REPLACE God’s truth with your own. That is blatant disobedience. Thus we see that those who choose to obey tradition rather than scripture are not obedient and their faith in tradition over their faith in the real Wrd will disqualify them. You change the Word, you change the God.
By the way, attacking the ludicrous dress code of the UPCi in no way excuses the error of the Trinity. Dress code legalism is far from exclusive to such assemblies and is irrelevant in this coversation.
August 26th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Gideon, I appreciate your comments, but they do not have anything to do with my article. In my article I said the following:
I will not open up a debate on Oneness vs. the Trinity here, or a debate on whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation.
The only reason I did not delete your post out of hand is because you obviously put a lot of thought into it. I hated to make you waste your time! However, I must warn you that future posts that go off topic will be deleted.
Since I did let your post go through I think that the points that you made deserve a response.
First, I have no problem with people baptizing in Jesus’ Name. If I were baptizing people then I would incorporate Jesus’ Name into the baptismal formula. However, I do not believe that baptism done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is invalid. Jesus said to do it that way, so why would He send us to hell for obeying Him? No amount of Scriptural manipulation can get around that simple point.
Perhaps an illustration can make this point more clear. If I had a child (which I do not) then I might tell her to go tell her mother that “Daddy says it is time to go.” If she repeats what I said literally then am I going to discipline her for not using my real name? Of course not! What father would do such a thing? I would be her Daddy and the whole family would know it no matter what word she used. On the other hand, if she tells her mother “Josh says it is time to go” then why would I care? I might find it strange that she called me “Josh” instead of “Dad,” but I would still know who she is talking about.
The same point can be made for any discussion on Matthew 28:19. When we baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost then God knows who we’re talking about. Why would He discipline us for literally repeating Him? On the other hand, if we baptize in the Name of Jesus then that is also His Name (for Jesus is fully God), so why would He discipline us for doing that? We know what authority we are baptizing in, and so does He. He is our heavenly father.
Now, please do not take this argument to the extreme by asking silly questions like: “Is it OK to baptize in the name of Bob?” Bob is not God.
Second, no one doubts that salvation only comes through the Name of Jesus. The UPC separates itself from mainstream Christianity by A) claiming that baptism remits sins and B) claiming that sins are only remitted if the Name of Jesus is said over a person. There is a lot that could be said about that, but I am not going to go into a full discussion of it here (although I will deal with it a bit more as I address the points that you made). All I want to say about it now is that it is abundantly clear that salvation only comes through the Name of Jesus. I find it rather surprising that Oneness Pentecostals continue to attack this particular “straw man.”
Third, aside from Acts 2:38 and 22:16, none of the verses that you cited tie baptism and remission of sins together. Citing a bunch of Scriptures as “proof texts” is one of my pet peeves. I would have edited out that list except people probably would have accused me of “hiding the truth” or some such silliness.
Fourth, Justin Martyr and Tertullian were not “Catholic Church Fathers.” The Roman Catholic Church as we know it did not exist back then. There was just “the Church.” The Roman Catholic Church did not technically come into existence until the Western and Eastern churches split around 1,000 A.D. (Although in practice the Eastern and Western churches split several hundred years before then.) They are known today as the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church respectively. Later, as you know, the Protestant Reformation caused the creation of denominations as we know them today. But the anti-Nicene fathers were not “Roman Catholic.” Roman Catholicism didn’t exist. The early church fathers were just Christian.
With that said, though, I certainly don’t put the apostolic fathers above the apostles themselves. I am not even sure where you got that idea from. My beliefs are based on Scripture and nothing else.
Fifth, your final statement about attacking the dress code to excuse the Trinity was rather confusing. I don’t believe I have ever dealt with the doctrine of the Trinity on this Web site, either in a positive or negative fashion. I believe the closest that I have come is pointing out to people that Trinitarians also believe in one God. I do not believe I have ever said anything beyond that.
Finally, I do not believe that baptism remits sins. I believe that sins are remitted at repentance (cf. Acts 3:19; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:38-39; Romans 4:6-8).
Dealing specifically with Acts 2:38 (and the phrase “for the forgiveness of your sins): In Acts 2:38 the word that we translate as “for” is the Greek word “eis.” Endless debate surrounds that little word. It can mean “aim or purpose,” which is the way that the UPC and other Oneness Pentecostals interpret it. They interpret it to mean “be baptized with the aim or purpose of remitting your sins.” This is the way that the word is used in 1 Cor. 2:7, which says:
“[B]ut we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to [eis] our glory” (NASB).
So in the case of 1 Cor. 2:7 the word “eis” means that the hidden wisdom of God was predestined “for the purpose of” our glory.
On the other hand, “eis” can also mean “the basis or ground” of doing something. In this case the usage in Acts 2:38 would mean “be baptized because your sins are remitted.” This is the way that the word is used in Matthew 10:41:
“He who receives a prophet in [eis] the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he who receives a righteous man in [eis] the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward” (NASB)
In this case the meaning of “eis” is “because of,” or “on the basis or ground of.” In other words, you receive a prophet because he is a prophet (not because you are going to make him a prophet).
The same usage is used in Matthew 10:42 and Matthew 12:41:
“And whoever in [eis] the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward” (Mat. 10:42 NASB).
“The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at [eis] the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Mat. 12:41 NASB).
So Acts 2:38 could mean that we are baptized to remit our sins, or we are baptized because our sins are remitted. We simply don’t know.
And it’s dangerous to base entire doctrinal systems on things that we don’t know.
Now, before you accuse me or “twisting” Scripture or coming up with my own theories, let me say that everything I just wrote was not my own theory. I leaned heavily on Robertson’s Word Pictures (copyright 1932) for this discussion of “eis.” I encourage you to study it out for yourself, though. Every Greek scholar that I have read says the same thing: The word cannot be definitively defined in Acts 2:38.
Also, you mentioned that every major translation translates Acts 2:38 the same way. That may be true (I don’t claim to know every major translation) but English translations do not change the Greek. However, I would not be so bold as to claim that most English translations are wrong. On the other hand, I just glanced at several translations and commentaries that I have handy. Here are the results:
Ryrie Study Bible: Notes that “eis” might mean “because of”
Jerusalem to Rome (commentary): Notes that “eis” might also be translated as “with reference to the remission” of sins
Holman New Testament Commentary: Does not deal with “eis”
Adam Clarke’s commentary: Says the proper translation is “in reference to the remission or removal of sins”
JFB Commentary: says “for the remission of sins” means “as the visible seal of that remission”
Robertson’s Word Pictures: Has an extended discussion of “eis”; the author concludes that it means baptism should “be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.”
Vincent’s Word Studies: Does not deal with “eis”
Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary: Discusses “eis” and concludes that it means “with a view to.” They also propose that the proper translation could be: “(you) repent for the remission of your sins, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”
The MacArthur Study Bible: concludes the passage should be translated “because of the remission of sins.”
Nelson’s Study Bible: See “Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary” above
The Open Bible: Does not deal with “eis”
Nelson’s New Testament Survey: Does not deal with “eis” (but does say that salvation is “by trusting in Jesus”
Believer’s Bible Commentary: Says that “eis” can also be translated as “unto” (I.e., be baptized unto the remission of their sins). It goes on to list four biblical reasons why salvation by baptism conflicts with Scripture
KJV Bible Commentary: Does not directly deal with “eis,” but claims the passage is “one of the most controversial in the New Testament. It goes on to discuss the passage and concludes that, Biblically speaking, it is impossible for Acts 2:38 to teach salvation by baptism.
I have 6 more commentaries handy that I have not checked. I think the point has been made. Bible scholars are unanimous in agreeing that “eis” in Acts 2:38 can either mean “because of” or “with the purpose of.” Furthermore, many of them view the “with the purpose of” translation (the Oneness and Roman Catholic view, amongst others) as being in direct conflict with Scripture.
Are all of these commentators–these students of Scripture–deliberately closing their minds to “the Truth”? I think not. These men and women spend their whole lives searching for truth; they aren’t trying to run from it. Perhaps one or two would deliberately reject truth and lead others astray. But all of them? I think that if we are living in the middle of a conspiracy that is that far reaching then we cannot trust anything!
Regarding Acts 22:16, which says:
“‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name’” (NASB).
When interpreting this Scripture I think it is helpful to understand how baptism was performed and what it signified in the New Testament. Frank Viola and George Barna, in their book “Pagan Christianity,” write a very succinct but powerful description of the role that baptism played in the early church:
“[I]t is typical in most contemporary churches for baptism to be
separated from conversion by great lengths of time. Many Christians
were saved at one age and baptized at a much later age. In the first
century, this was unheard of.
In the early church converts were baptized immediately upon believing.
One scholar says of baptism and conversion, ‘They belong together.
Those who repented and believed the Word were baptized. That was the
invariable pattern, so far as we know.’ Another writes, ‘At the birth
of the church, converts were baptized with little or not delay.’
In the first century water baptism was the outward confession of a
person’s faith. But more than that, it was the way someone came to the
Lord. For this reason, the confession of baptism is vitally linked to
the exercise of saving faith. So much so that the New Testament
writers often use ‘baptism’ in place of the word ‘faith’ and link it
to being ‘saved’ (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21).
This is because baptism was the early Christian’s initial confession
of faith in Christ.”
They go on to say: “[W]ater baptism was the sinner’s prayer in century one!”
I have believed that baptism and confession were intertwined ever since I studied it on my own in 2006-2007, but Viola and Barna say it better than I ever could. I personally believe that the “washing away” that Paul referred to in Acts 22:16 came from confession/repentance, not from baptism. This would complement Peter’s statement that it is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” that saves us (1 Pet. 3:21 NASB).
Could I be wrong? Absolutely. There are many denominations that teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration–the doctrine that says sins are remitted (or that a person is spiritually “regenerated”) upon baptism. Oneness Pentecostals are hardly the first to teach it! It’s not a “new” revelation, or even a re-discovered belief!
In the end I think that baptism should be done because Christ commanded it. We can debate passages like Acts 2:38 and 22:16 all day long and never come to agreement. But what we CAN agree on is that Christ commanded it, so we should do it. And what we SHOULD be able to agree on is that faith (trust and belief) in Christ is sufficient for salvation (cf. John 1:12; John 3:14-17; John 3:36; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25-26; John 12:44-46; John 20:31; Acts 2:21; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 5:1-2; Romans 10:9-14; Galatians 2:16; 1 John 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-10).
- Josh S.
February 27th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Hello again, Are you saying that you do not believe the gifts are still for today? Marijo
March 1st, 2011 at 9:37 am
Marijo,
I definitely believe the gifts of the Spirit are still for today.
In Christ,
- Josh S.
April 4th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Thank you for sharing this information.
BIC
April 30th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Hello, I have been intrigued by this site and a little bit saddened. In this day we are in, people need Christ more thatn ever! I am also an ex-UPCer, however, I left for holiness dogmatic reasons, i still and always will believe salvation doctrine, not all Apostolics believe that if you don’t get filled with the Holy Ghost, you are going to hell! Point 1 Theif on the cross, Jesus may have died before, however the very foundation of Death Burial and Ressurection had not been fulfilled, he died yes, representing repentance, and that is what the theif did with humility, but not burried which we would all agree that is what baptism in water represents? John baptised unto repentance, but when Paul asked if they had the Holy ghost, they had no clue (Acts 19:5) They were then baptised in the name of The Lord Jesus.
point 2. Matt 28:19 The titles, Christ knew he was dealing with believers that had the full revalation of Jesus being ALL of those things. (Is 9:6) So the words of Jesus were carried out as every instance anyone being baptised, it was in the name of Jesus, or Lord Jesus.
My next thing to present is are we the Church the Bride of Crist? A bride takes the name of her husband, not his title of accountant or lawyer.
Thank you for the time, Too many people look for loopholes to get out of things or make excuses why they don’t believe or not yet experienced, however The Bible is truth, being born again is not a Pentecostal thing, Jesus said it, Salvation is just that, saved from, repentence is the death of the old man, baptism in water submersion is the burial as was Jesus buried, this is also for the remission of sins, it is clear the word declares our sins are removed in baptism, and yes in the wonderful all powerful Name of Jesus, becoming part of the family, the Bride, the Church. The infilling of the Holy Ghost is your power to overcome, not affiliated with you not going to heaven, but you miss out on the full power, “A form of Godliness but deny the power.” I believe the word is clear on speaking in tongues as the sign you have received the Holy Ghost, most people that do not believe this have not experienced it. It is a wonderful powerful awesome thing to know Jesus and be a part of the Kingdom. Thank you for your time.
May 11th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Obviously one must know that man can not put a man in heaven or hell. It is to say that as a Christian and an Apostolic I do not hold another believers salvation in my hand or, have the ability to look at another persons walk with God and say that one is going to heaven for sure. It is an amazing and yet awkward thing to say,” I think you mam or sir need to be rebaptized in Jesus name!”
Yet, this is biblical truth in Acts -thee New Testament church begins and it is the teaching and revelation given to these precious saints of God. Not to mention the facts of Matthew 28:19 are most likely a mistranslated text to start with. I have hours of research if needed on this particular and uniquely written verse compared to all other new testament scriptures. Thus: 2nd Corinthians, 4:3 states
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded…
If we hide this truth or other truths in the bible we are held accountable. Will God save those not baptized in his name? Let him be the judge. But let us remain steadfast in the Apostles doctrine concerning baptism. How can you un-reveal something? Or how can you be in a church baptized in the name and hear even one baptism in a triune formula and your soul not cry out……. “Wait I know a better way!” It is “the easy way out” to say I hope we all make it in.
Why is Jeremiah known as the weeping prophet? Because his message was neither popular or wanted buy it was from God and that is all that really matters. Nothing can change the truth of baptism and if you have this knowledge you are accountable to share his name. Please consider this.
May 11th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
BE,
There is no evidence to indicate Matthew 28:19 is mistranslated. Please be sure to provide supporting facts when making claims like that on this Web site. In this case there are no supporting facts, because it’s a claim with no basis.
In Christ,
- Josh S. (Site admin)
May 15th, 2011 at 8:57 am
U just missed the point of what u said. Jesus is not going to send his followers to hell for OBEYING him. See most people don’t want to give up they way and be obedient. That was a commandment. And you do have to obey his commandments. Find out the name of the father the son and whose name the holy ghost comes in. Those are not names but titles. Nobody in the bible has been baptised repeating those words fsh. Be obedient.
May 15th, 2011 at 11:57 am
David,
Obeying Jesus isn’t an easter egg hunt or a game of Clue. We don’t have to run around the Bible trying to piece it together and find out what He really meant. Jesus said to be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and He’s not going to send people to hell for taking Him literally. Anybody who thinks He will has a very incorrect view of God.
In Christ,
- Josh S.
May 15th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Wow, I’m just amazed at all I’ve read in the above comments. Yes, I am a Christian who has been water-baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But that’s not what makes me a Christian. Water baptism is an ACT of obedience and is SYMBOLIC in our death, burial and resurrection with Christ. The REAL baptism happened WITHIN me before I was water baptized.
Some of Jesus’ last words before He ascended to Heaven are found in Matthew 28:18-20 “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” It’s just as plain as day to me – this is what Jesus Himself commanded. And I do believe Him when He says that He has all and final authority.
But, again, being water baptized and even having those words said by someone else as I was being submerged in water is NOT what led to my salvation. I think less emphasis needs to be put on water baptism and more emphasis needs to be put on the spiritual baptism.
It’s really sad that we (Christians) are so divided amongst ourselves. It would be great to see that we all support each other in our own search for Truth instead of of being so dogmatic in our own personal views and beliefs. The truth is, this whole thing is about a relationship with Christ, not about a bunch of rules our churches have made. Each of us has a different and unique walk with Him. Why can’t we accept that?
I love going to Christian concerts or gospel concerts where for a few hours we are all as we are supposed to be: a united body in Christ. Doesn’t matter what specific doctrine we follow or which denominational church we attend or “belong to”. We stand together, we sing and praise and worship His worthy name. But come Sunday morning, there’s division instead of unity. So terribly sad.
Ann
May 21st, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Matthew 28:18-20 says alot if you really get into these verses, 18 says “all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me”. He gives the Great Commisson to the disciples in verse 19 and concludes in verse 20 to observe all that he has commanded. So if Jesus was given all authority and gives the command to do what he has said, then let it be so.
November 7th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Check the church fathers (any pre-4th century). None that quote this verse have the closing phrase (in the name of…holy spirit). They all read simply ‘in my name’. Just a thought to consider.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Brendan,
That’s not correct. The earliest manuscripts of Matthew the Mat. 28:19-20 the same way that it is today, and those manuscripts pre-date the 4th century. The phrase appears the same way in numerous quotations by the apostolic fathers. I’m not sure where you heard that it was changed, but that information is incorrect.
In Christ,
- Josh S.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:51 am
What is the name of THE FATHER,THE SON and THE HOLY GHOAST?Does not the bible says the fulness of the Godhead BODILY dwells in the Lord Jesus?Is not Jesus the ESPRESS IMAGE OF THE IMVINCIBLE GOD?If He said we should babtize in the name,not names,then what is that name?Is Jesus.the name of God the father revealed in the Son through His Spirit in a bodily form is called Jesus. if i Dont say Jesus but Father son and Holy Spirit to me it means the same thing.if your father is called Ben,and i give you a gift and say that i give you this gift in the name of your father,do i need to say Ben before you know im refering to your father?when God was coming in the flesh,to dwell IN US by His Spirit in His Son,the name He gave us is JESUS.Whether father, son and holy spirit or Jesus to me they lead to the same root and makes no deference for agument or doctrine to be formed in it.
January 18th, 2012 at 2:45 am
Kofi,
By your logic, baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is equivalent to baptizing in the Name of Jesus. A name is nothing more than an identifier. In some cultures it carries a significance beyond that, of course. There was a reason that “Jesus” means “Jehovah saves” (loosely translated). However, the power that rests in the Name of Jesus comes through a relationship with Him, not through knowledge of His Name. That’s why the seven sons of Sceva got such a rude awakening when they tried to cast out demons in the Name of Jesus. There was no authority because there was no relationship. That’s why we can’t forcibly baptize people in the Name of Jesus and expect them to be saved. We don’t save them, Christ does. We can dunk them 10,000 times in the Name of Jesus and it won’t make a lick of difference unless there’s a relationship to back it up.
If saying the Name of Jesus over a person in baptism is so important that it affects their salvation then we probably need to be saying it in Aramaic, since that’s what the apostles would have been doing on the Day of Pentecost. On the other hand, if we admit that it’s not the pronunciation of the Name of Jesus that matters, or the language in which it is spoken, and if we admit that it is the relationship and recognition of Christ as Lord that carries the power, and not the saying of the Name itself, then we have to admit that saying “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” IS saying the Name of Jesus.
After all, would it be any different if a person said “Joshua Michael Spiers” or if they said “That guy who’s the fiance of Kali and the son of Dale Spiers and the son of Debbie Spiers and the grandson of Izen Whiddon, Bennie Whiddon, Thomas Spiers, and Leola Spiers”? Doesn’t either way have the same effect? Doesn’t either way identify who I am?
The debate about “the Titles” versus “the Name of Jesus” is pointless. Either way, you’re baptizing people into Christ.
In Christ,
- Josh S. (site admin)