The Error is Baptism in Jesus name only for salvation

[TrustandObey]

My argument is not weak based on the scriptures that I shared with you. I hear some folks in the CoC say that the thief on the cross died under the OT mandate and did not need to be baptized while other folks in the CoC ask the question, "how do we know the thief on the cross was not previously baptized?" It's you folks who are grasping at straws in a vain effort to support your false gospel. You would walk around mountains of grace in order to find water.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a certainty and an assumption.

There is no certainty that the thief on the cross was or was not baptized. Are you really using this as evidence that Peter was not commanding repentance and baptism for the remission of sins?

Regardless if the thief on the cross was or was not baptized, the promise made to him by Jesus was a personal one much like the paralyzed man in Mark 2:1-12. We are in no position to shoehorn ourselves into the promises of others.

The promise of Acts 2 is a promise meant for all. "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

John the Baptist and Jesus both proclaimed a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. You need to accept this reality.

 

[Brasspen]

If you are in position to get baptized and have not done it, then I would recommend getting baptized. I was baptized and it was a great experience. I even received deliverance when it happened.

If you haven't done it, do the baptism, even Jesus himself got baptized.

 

[Wansvic]

On the cross, there was two other people with Jesus. Was the one who Jesus said would be in the Kingdom of heaven, was he baptized by the water?

The NT water baptism in the name of Jesus did not go into effect until the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:36-42)

 

[Wansvic]

At what point did Quasimodo fall in love with Esmerelda, and determined to defend her to his death? Answer: In the moment that she showed her compassion toward him by offering him a drink of water.


The thief was baptized in(to) Jesus' Name as evidenced by his last words to the other thief in defense of Jesus' Christhood, and to Jesus Himself, 'remember me...' Notice that he 'asked' this by using the sentence structure of a command. Was he concerned that Jesus might forget him? No, he spoke with confidence in Jesus to keep him, and Jesus replied with His blessed assurance.

God's love is His living water.

Baptism in Jesus' name is a reference to the NT water baptism.

"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." Acts 10:47-48

Note all detailed NT conversion accounts involve both water baptism in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost as a separate experience. (Acts 2:4-42, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

 

[mailmandan]

You don't seem to understand the difference between a certainty and an assumption.

There is no certainty that the thief on the cross was or was not baptized. Are you really using this as evidence that Peter was not commanding repentance and baptism for the remission of sins?

Regardless if the thief on the cross was or was not baptized, the promise made to him by Jesus was a personal one much like the paralyzed man in Mark 2:1-12. We are in no position to shoehorn ourselves into the promises of others.

The promise of Acts 2 is a promise meant for all. "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

John the Baptist and Jesus both proclaimed a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. You need to accept this reality.

I understand the difference between a pure assumption and a highly unlikely. Now certain folks may try to argue that the thief on the cross may have been converted, was water baptized, yet the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely)

In Matthew 27:39-44, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests' scribes and elders blasphemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blaspheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Do you? (highly unlikely) Yet, moments later, we see that one of the thieves had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and was saved. (Luke 23:40-43) Of course, he died while still hanging on the cross before having the opportunity to be water baptized afterwards. That settles it for me.

A common argument used by water-salvationists in an attempt to "get around" the thief on the cross being saved through faith "apart from water baptism" is, "the thief was not subject to baptism because he died under the Old Testament mandate before Jesus died and was resurrected." So let's see, after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in Acts 2:38, we read - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." and before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, while still under the Old Testament mandate, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, we read - John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

Similar message and baptism is done on the basis of the remission of sins received upon repentance. Faith/belief in Jesus Christ (for salvation) "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 20:21; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

As Greek scholar AT Robertson pointed out - My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So, I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.

Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

*Also, be sure to read post #1,790.

So, in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance FOR (in order to obtain) the remission of sins or was it or FOR (in regard to/on the basis of) the remission of sins received upon repentance? It would have to be the latter in order to agree with the Old Testament mandate argument. *In Matthew 3:11, we read: I baptize you with water FOR repentance.. Now did John baptize with water "in order to obtain" repentance or FOR (in regard to/on the basis of) repentance? Obviously, the latter. Baptized in order to obtain repentance would make no sense whatsoever! Repentance "precedes" water baptism. So, in Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3 and Acts 2:38, baptism is on the basis of the remission of sins received upon repentance. So, the water baptism is not necessary for salvation under the Old Testament mandate but is necessary for salvation under the New Testament mandate argument doesn't hold water.

Under the Old Testament and the New Testament mandate, salvation is through belief/faith "apart from water baptism" (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:29;40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43-47; 11:17-18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-26; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:26; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..).

 

[mailmandan]

The Gospels, of which John is one, are historical accounts of the life, teachings, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. None of them describes the establishing of a church; they describe the One who would establish the church upon His person, teaching, (including water baptism) and work. Whereas, the Book of Acts is a narrative history of the New Testament church, describing its beginning in Jerusalem (where the NT water baptism in Jesus' name was introduced) and its spread to all Judea, Samaria, and the Gentile world.

Those who believe and obey God's command of water baptism in the name of Jesus are in fact calling upon the name of the Lord. God established obedience to water baptism as the means of washing away sin in association with Jesus' sacrifice. Those who believe and obey God receive what He promised; their sins are washed away:
"Why tarriest arise and be baptized AND WASH AWAY YOUR SIN calling upon the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16) "...be baptized EVERYONE of you in THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sin..." (Acts 2:38)

Many have no idea that calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus is directly related to water baptism because of a distortion made so long ago. Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is a manmade tradition begun in 325 A.D.

Consider that Jesus' apostles never baptized anyone using the phrase "I baptize you in the NAME of the Father, and the Son and Holy Ghost. They consistently water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16) Why? Because it is Jesus who was crucified to save man. And in Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead. (Col. 2:9-12) We are complete in HIM:

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) bodily.

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Buried with him, (with who? JESUS) in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Col. 2:9-12)

Must baptism be “in Jesus’ name”?
by Matt Slick | Dec 8, 2008 | Oneness Pentecostal, World Religions

Oneness Pentecostal theology maintains that baptism must be by immersion using the formula “in Jesus name” and not the formula “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” as is found in Matt. 28:19. They reject the Trinitarian formula because they reject the Trinity.

To support their method, they cite various Bible verses that reference baptizing in Jesus’ name and claim that this is proof for their doctrine. The following are some of the Bible references they quote.

• Acts 2:38,” 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 8:16, “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
• Acts 10:48, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
• Acts 19:5, “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
• Acts 22:16, ‘And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

Let’s take a look at what is going on in the verses. The phrase, “in the name of the Lord,” is not a reference to a baptismal formula but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, “Stop in the name of the Law!” We understand that the “name of the Law” means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with baptism “in Jesus’ name.” To baptize in Jesus’ name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. Consider the following:

• “And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 11 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead–by this name this man stands here before you in good health” (Acts 4:7-10).
• Acts 4:17-18, “But in order that it may not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name. 18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.”
• Acts 5:28, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
• Acts 5:40, “And they took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then released them.”
• Acts 8:12, “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.”
• Acts 9:27-28, “But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord.”
• Acts 16:18, “And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.”

CONTINUED..

 

[mailmandan]

We can see that the phrase is used in the Bible as an expression of authority. This is particularly clarified in Acts 16:18 above. Let’s look at it again. “And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.” We also see that when people were being baptized, they did it calling on Jesus’ name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The church is supposed to “call upon the name of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority (John 1:12) that we Christians have the hope and right of forgiveness of sins and adoption as His children (Rom. 8:15).

Therefore, the Oneness Pentecostal people are simply in error by demanding that baptism be done with the formula “In Jesus’ name.” Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).

The proper way to baptize in Jesus’ name is to say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

https://carm.org/oneness-pentecostal/must-baptism-be-in-jesus-name-baptize/

God is one, not three separate persons. Deut. 6:4 reveals this; "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." God manifested Himself as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.

"Hear O' Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD." (Deut. 6:4) The Holy Spirit is not a distinct "person." The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit.

I agree that Jesus' human nature died on the cross. Where we differ is I believe scripture reveals God manifests Himself as the Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Ghost in regeneration; not three distinct "persons"..

 

[Sipsey]

We can see that the phrase is used in the Bible as an expression of authority. This is particularly clarified in Acts 16:18 above. Let’s look at it again. “And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.” We also see that when people were being baptized, they did it calling on Jesus’ name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The church is supposed to “call upon the name of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority (John 1:12) that we Christians have the hope and right of forgiveness of sins and adoption as His children (Rom. 8:15).

Therefore, the Oneness Pentecostal people are simply in error by demanding that baptism be done with the formula “In Jesus’ name.” Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).

The proper way to baptize in Jesus’ name is to say, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

https://carm.org/oneness-pentecostal/must-baptism-be-in-jesus-name-baptize/

For several years I worked with a devoted COC fellow. He was adamant that water baptism was not only required for salvation, but that one must also confess that the water was the means of their salvation. To not believe that the water saved, was to still be lost. He also claimed to be genetically identified as a Native American. I carried him hunting in the swamps I grew up in and we used a canoe to travel the waterways to sneak closer to wild game. The guy didn’t have a clue as to how to paddle or even how to be still. He was also a lousy shot.

One time after listening to another of his lectures at work, I quoted a verse-
“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.”—- He stood up, obviously upset, then said, “If that’s all it takes, anyone could get saved.” I said, I thought that’s why Jesus said He came to this fallen world.

 

[Lamar]

For several years I worked with a devoted COC fellow. He was adamant that water baptism was not only required for salvation, but that one must also confess that the water was the means of their salvation. To not believe that the water saved, was to still be lost. He also claimed to be genetically identified as a Native American. I carried him hunting in the swamps I grew up in and we used a canoe to travel the waterways to sneak closer to wild game. The guy didn’t have a clue as to how to paddle or even how to be still. He was also a lousy shot.

One time after listening to another of his lectures at work, I quoted a verse-
“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.”—- He stood up, obviously upset, then said, “If that’s all it takes, anyone could get saved.” I said, I thought that’s why Jesus said He came to this fallen world.

Your story reminds me of one of my own.

For many years I lived next to a devoted Baptist fellow. He was steadfast in his belief in faith alone regeneration theology. He not only believed in this theology but insisted that one must acknowledge this truth as a means to their salvation. To not acknowledge this theology was to still be lost. He also claimed to be a conservationist but I noticed he did not separate his plastics from his paper on trash pick-up day. He even drove a gas guzzling Chevy Suburban! I also spotted him on more then one occasion not curbing his German Shepherd.

One time after listening to another of his lectures, I quoted a verse-
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."---He sat down, clearly perplexed, then said, "If we need to be baptized for our salvation then faith alone regeneration theology is bogus!" I replied, "I thought that's why Jesus was baptizing people during His earthly ministry."

 

[mailmandan]

For several years I worked with a devoted COC fellow. He was adamant that water baptism was not only required for salvation, but that one must also confess that the water was the means of their salvation. To not believe that the water saved, was to still be lost. He also claimed to be genetically identified as a Native American. I carried him hunting in the swamps I grew up in and we used a canoe to travel the waterways to sneak closer to wild game. The guy didn’t have a clue as to how to paddle or even how to be still. He was also a lousy shot.

One time after listening to another of his lectures at work, I quoted a verse-
“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.”—- He stood up, obviously upset, then said, “If that’s all it takes, anyone could get saved.” I said, I thought that’s why Jesus said He came to this fallen world.

When I was a teenager, I had temporarily attended the so called church of Christ. It was a friend who invited me to attend that church and his aunt was a very devout and thoroughly indoctrinated member of that church. I'll never forget several years later running into my friend's aunt at my friend's daughter's birthday party. Since then, I had received Jesus Christ through faith and was now a born-again Christian. I shared this good news with his aunt and the only question that she had for me was, "where do you attend church?" When my answer was not "the church of Christ," she bowed her head in sadness as if to imply that I was still lost because I did not say the church of Christ and she simply walked away.

After that her husband approached me and I shared the good news with him as well that I had received Jesus Christ through faith and am now a born-again Christian and he had the same question, "where do you attend church," and when I told him and the answer was not the church of Christ, his eyes glazed over followed by a cheesy legalistic grin on his face and he simply walked away from me and neither of them would speak with me for the rest of the night. I knew that something was terribly wrong! I could hear them both over in the corner going on and on about "salvation by water baptism" and that ONLY their church, "the church of Christ" is the "true Church." I realized they were both deceived!

 

[JimiSurvivor]

The thief on the cross was forgiven and saved by the Lord while Jesus was yet alive, meaning it was done under the old testament; baptism wasn't needed or required for salvation until the death of Christ when the NT came into effect. Read Hebrews 9:15-17

John the Baptizer was the messenger appointed by God to proclaim the Baptism of Repentance and to Baptize as many as that prepared people's hearts to turn their hearts to the Messiah (Jesus) I do not remember John using the example of the thief to say water Baptism was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. Rather, Jesus COMMANDED baptism to give those being drawn a way to a visible act perform an ACT of faith, a visible act of the will which when obeyed would lead a person to give themselves to Him in repentance. That is the "spiritual reality" of Baptism. He did not command people to merely IMAGINE or to pretend that the baptismal act was the only thing that was real.
Baptism was the separation point between converts and their old way of thinking and the new life of serving Jesus. I have never read this anywhere.

 

[Lamar]

If you want to think of the Lord Jesus as Metaphorical in the context of His blood, that's my guess.

The Blood of Jesus Christ is a figure of speech, much like a synecdoche, unless you are Catholic.

What is your point, if you have one?

 

[Brasspen]

Also the thief stood up for Jesus, as the other thief said something bad to him. Then the other thief countered it. Right after this he then asked Jesus for salvation. Oh one more thing, the other person on the cross had been found guilty of murder.

@Lamar the hymmnal, 'Oh the blood of Jesus'.

Another hymn, 'What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus'.

 

[Lamar]

temporarily attended

That was your first mistake, you should have stayed and learned the truth.

These personal anecdotal stories you present as evidence of your faith alone regeneration theology is rather lame.

And so is Sipsey's.

 

[Lamar]

Also the thief stood up for Jesus, as the other thief said something bad to him. Then the other thief countered it. Right after this he then asked Jesus for salvation. Oh one more thing, the other person on the cross had been found guilty of murder.

@Lamar the hymmnal, 'Oh the blood of Jesus'.

Another hymn, 'What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus'.

Basing your hope on a song is not wise and reeks of Universalism.

 

[CS1]

The Blood of Jesus Christ is a figure of speech, much like a synecdoche, unless you are Catholic.

What is your point, if you have one?

Actually, it is not a figure of Speech. Jesus literally died and shed his blood on the cross. Pleading the Blood of Jesus is a Statement of conviction. That is my point, and water is not more Powerful than the Blood of OUR Lord.

 

[mailmandan]

That was your first mistake, you should have stayed and learned the truth.

These personal anecdotal stories you present as evidence of your faith alone regeneration theology is rather lame.

And so is Sipsey's.

Just like Roman Catholicism, the church of Christ (Campbellism) teaches salvation by faith + works (with a heavy emphasis on water baptism) which is not the truth but is a false gospel. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Romans 1:16; 3:24-26; 4:5-6; 11:6; 1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..)

Thank God I learned the truth and chose to believe the gospel and managed to escape from both of those false religions. Praise God!

 

[Lamar]

Just like Roman Catholicism, the church of Christ (Campbellism) teaches salvation by faith + works (with a heavy emphasis on water baptism) which is not the truth but is a false gospel. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Romans 1:16; 3:24-26; 4:5-6; 11:6; 1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..)

Thank God I learned the truth and chose to believe the gospel and managed to escape from both of those false religions. Praise God!

Churches of Christ believe in the remission of sins when a person believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, repents and is baptized.

If this is wrong then I most certainly am wrong. But there are many passages in the Bible that attest to this

Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1st Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Matthew 28:19-20, Romans 6:3-4, Acts 22:16, Gal. 3:27, Titus 3:5 and many more.

You and others on this forum believe in faith alone regeneration theology which they cannot present even one verse that supports their assertion that faith alone is the point of the remission of sins.

It is important to highlight that those of this ilk are not asserting that faith is needed (the churches of Christ believe this) but they insist that you must believe it is faith alone that saves. If not then you are labeled a "works-salvationist".

 

[Lamar]

Actually, it is not a figure of Speech. Jesus literally died and shed his blood on the cross. Pleading the Blood of Jesus is a Statement of conviction. That is my point, and water is not more Powerful than the Blood of OUR Lord.

It seems you are implying that the Living Waters of our Lord is powerless?

John 7:37
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.

Jesus is not telling people to drink His blood!

CS1, are you thirsty? Ask Jesus for His water. There is salvation in the water.

Many here would rather die in a dry desert then humble themselves to the Living Waters of our Lord.

 

[PaulThomson]

Part One:

Within some branches of some Pentecostalism and others, a movement has emerged that rejects the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. This anti-Trinity movement, often referred to as Oneness Pentecostalism, has splintered into various denominations, fellowships, and independent churches.


A central point of contention in this movement is the formula used in Christian baptism. While mainstream Christianity follows Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 28:19 to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” those in the anti-Trinity camp reject this practice. Instead, they insist baptism should be performed “in the name of Jesus only,” arguing that the Trinitarian formula is unbiblical and, in some cases, even claiming it is an anti-Christ concept.


This perspective significantly deviates from historic Christian orthodoxy, which has affirmed the Trinity as a foundational truth since the early creeds of the Church. It’s important for believers to understand where these differences come from and to engage in thoughtful, biblically grounded discussion on matters of doctrine and practice.

Understanding these movements helps us appreciate the diversity within Pentecostalism while also reaffirming the core doctrines that unite the broader body of Christ.

The “Jesus Only” View of Baptism: A Revival of an Ancient Heresy

Adherents point to Acts 2:38, where Peter declares on the day of Pentecost: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…” They interpret this as a divine revelation that reveals the “true” meaning behind Matthew 28:19. According to their belief, the phrase in Matthew is essentially a riddle—one that is “unlocked” by the revelation that “Jesus” is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This teaching is a modern expression of an ancient heresy known as Modalism, or Sabellianism—named after Sabellius, a third-century teacher. Modalism denies the distinct persons of the Trinity, claiming instead that God reveals Himself in different “modes” or roles: Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit in regeneration. Oneness advocates often present this as a unique, end-time revelation from God. Yet, ironically, the belief itself is not new—it revives a doctrine the early church refuted nearly 1,800 years ago.

While sincere in their convictions, this rejection of the Trinity stands in direct opposition to historic Christian orthodoxy, which affirms the co-equal and co-eternal nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325), a foundational statement of Christian faith, was developed in part to combat such distortions of God’s nature.

The language of Scripture and the testimony of the early church both affirm a Triune God—not three gods, but one God in three persons. Understanding these theological distinctions isn’t just academic; it’s vital to preserving the integrity of the gospel and the fullness of who God has revealed Himself to be.

I lean toward communal trinitarianism myself. But belief in a Triune God is not vital to having a Father-to son/daughter relationship with God. Various trinitarian models of Yahweh were present in the early church, it is true, but so were unitarian models of Yahweh present in the early church. The fact that trinitarianism was present in the early church does not prove that it was correct or necessary, any more that the presence of unitarian models prove they were true. If my theological opinions are not producing a more loving Christlike character, they are for me merely vain philosophy pretending to be piety. Both unitarians and trinitarians can grow in Christlikeness, or not grow. So, the opinion itself is not essential.