Water Baptism-What is in a Name?

The biblical record is void of any water baptisms administered using the titles; all were done in Jesus' name. (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

Even though we find that in the book of Acts people were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, the historical record of Christianity shows that since the end of the Apostolic Age Christians were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (as instructed by Christ Himself).

THE DIDACHE (2nd century)
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

JUSTIN MARTYR (2nd century)
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. [Note: In this passage Justin Martyr may have also introduced the false idea of baptismal regeneration, which was adopted by the Catholic church, since he is Saint Justin Martyr for Catholics]

As to why this was not spelled out in the book of Acts, it is not really clear. But the apostles knew exactly what the Lord had said, and perhaps "in the name of Jesus" was an abbreviated form of the full pronouncement and to show that this was not the same as the baptism of John.

The biblical record is void of any water baptisms administered using the titles; all were done in Jesus' name. (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

The biblical record is void of any water baptisms administered using the titles; all were done in Jesus' name. (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

So you are saying Jesus say something that it is not true? I take Jesus words to be true because he is the truth. Jesus said it! Amen!

I see your struggle to the meaning of "In the name of" which I believe to mean in the authority. Well you used the book of Acts for your proof text that water baptism is to be done in Jesus name as the apostles did and other disciples and am in no way contradicting what scriptures says. Perhaps you only need to understand what is says. Jesus said "All POWER is given unto me..." so that in the book of Acts they are invoking the name of Jesus as their authority in preaching the gospel and healing of the sick. They take the words of Jesus to be source of authority. So there's no issue or contradiction as far as the Bible is concern.

I just think people should consider the possibility that Jesus meant His name was to be used. Especially since the apostles never baptized in the titles.

Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative. After being water baptized in the titles I was later shocked to find that every recorded water baptism was administered in Jesus' name. So I complied with the word and was re-baptized.

After being obedient, God began pointing me to scriptures pertinent to baptism. It has been and continues to be a journey prompted by God. It was never my intention to do such an extensive study. But not my will but God's will is what's important.

May God Bless You!

If you complied with the word why re-baptized since you already complied to what Jesus said?

Continued...

5. Finally, this whole premise is contrary to the clear biblical record: I cannot think of one place in scripture where God commands us to repeat some magic words, and if, with the best motives and best intentions, we quite accidentally get a few words wrong, he punishes us.

Words are not magical.

..

...but often comical.

I just think people should consider the possibility that Jesus meant His name was to be used. Especially since the apostles never baptized in the titles.

Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative. After being water baptized in the titles I was later shocked to find that every recorded water baptism was administered in Jesus' name. So I complied with the word and was re-baptized.

After being obedient, God began pointing me to scriptures pertinent to baptism. It has been and continues to be a journey prompted by God. It was never my intention to do such an extensive study. But not my will but God's will is what's important.

May God Bless You!

Have you taken on the name of Jesus Christ the bridegroom?

When a man and woman are united in marriage the new wife takes on her husband’s name. The preacher does not use descriptive titles associated with a fiancée in the marriage ceremony; i.e., “Mary Smith, do you take this officer, carpenter and son of Mr. and Mrs. Doe, as your lawfully wedded husband?” Rather he says “Do you take John Doe to be your lawfully wedded husband?” After the ceremony, the bride is Mrs. John Doe. The bride sheds her birth name and acquires a new name. The bride and groom are no longer two individuals but are one in the eyes of God..

In the book of Matthew, Jesus said, “…All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” He went on to say “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (28:18) Why would Jesus say that all power was given unto Him and in the next sentence state to baptize in the titles of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit? He did not. Jesus told the disciples to water baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; He was referring to His own name.

There is extensive information on the use of Jesus’ name as the baptismal formula of water baptism as recorded in history. All references indicate that the formula was changed from the use of Jesus’ name, to the phrase of “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” by the Roman Catholic Church after the development of the doctrine of the trinity in the 2nd century.

No individual or organization has the right to change what God ordains. Will we follow the direction of a worldly organization or will we stay committed to seeking and adhering to what the Lord Himself has commanded of us? And, is so clearly referenced in the Word ((Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

Information pertaining to the change in historical water baptism can be found in many encyclopedias; Britannica, Canney, Catholic, Hastings, New International, Religion & Ethics, Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, New Schaff-Herzog, etc.

Never forget there is POWER in the NAME OF JESUS.

We are TOLD to earnestly contend (seek out/strive) for the faith once given to the saints/apostles (Jude 3)

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE—Grant and Rowley (Edited bv James Hastings), 1963 Revised Edition, page 88
…“the primitive Church baptized ‘in’ or ‘into the name of Jesus’ (or ‘Jesus Christ’, or ‘the Lord Jesus’, (1 Corinthians 1:13, 15; Acts 8:16; 19:5).... Thus the spoken formula, ‘in the name of Jesus’, effected the presence of the risen Lord and gave the baptized into His possession and protection.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 8
“Justin Martys was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1967 edition, volume 2, pages 56, 59.
“An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of baptism cannot be found in the first centuries.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEIA, 1913 edition, volume 2, Page 265:
“They acknowledge that the original formula for baptism was in the Name of Jesus, but
the pope changed it.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1913 EDITION.
“There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty.

Thus St Paul (Acts 19 commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s Name: “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

In Acts 10 we read that St Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Those who were converted by Philip (Acts 8 “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38).

Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION—Vol 2, pages 377, 378, 389.

“The Christian baptism was administered using the name of Jesus. The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history, Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr, when the trinity formula was used.

Volume 2, page 377, commenting on Acts 2:38, “Name was an ancient synonym for person. Payment was always made in the name of some person, referring to ownership, therefore, one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property, (“Ye are Christ’s I Corinthians 3:23.)

Being baptized in the name of Jesus only is a hallmark belief of Oneness Pentecostals.

Attached is a pdf by Robert Bowman addressing the problems with this teaching.

By the way, so many different groups blame the Roman Catholic boogie man for contaminating the true faith regarding their pet doctrines. I am not Roman Catholic, but we shouldn't be looking to Roman Catholicism and claiming that they contaminated the "true faith" on every single peculiar doctrine that our group holds.

In fact, the Roman Catholic church was a mere bishopric before AD 450, and really did not achieve prominent status until after 1054 AD. I laugh out loud when I hear stories about the Roman Catholic church doing this or that at the Council of Nicea. For one thing, the Roman bishopric wasn't even present at Nicea, and the Roman bishopric didn't have that kind of power. Secondly, the word "catholic" simply meant something like "genuine" at that time, so when you read historical documents, you need to keep that in mind. The "catholic church" at that time wasn't talking about the Roman Catholic church; it was used to distinguish between real Christians and anti-Trinitarians and those who denied Jesus' deity.

I really suggest that people read church history to avoid being led astray by cultists. I particularly recommend 2000 Years of Christ's Power by Nick Needham. There are four volumes, and it is written in simple, easy to understand language. After you read it, perhaps you will understand that the version of church history supported by cultists is similar to the National Enquirer magazine. While it is true that many unfortunate events have occurred throughout Christianity, cultists and their alternate histories are much worse.

Check out the attacked pdf document, though..it addresses the OP fairly well.

If anyone is seriously concerned on this issue I’d suggest researching each one of these references to see if they are credible.

Better advise. Do a search of the entire bible of every form of the word baptize; baptism, baptized, etc. Upon doing so, the result will provide the truth concerning how one should be water baptized.

Sadly, many seek to find answers to what the bible means by searching outside of its pages. Outside publications can and are used to back-up the truth of God's Word but not to establish a concept separate from the truth provided in the bible.

Being baptized in the name of Jesus only is clearly established in the Word of God. Water baptisms were consistently administered in Jesus' name. (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

What is confusing is why anyone would accept someone's opinion such as, Robert Bowman's rather than God's own inspired Word?

Everyone will be judged by God's Word not a tradition comprised from man's opinion. (John 12:48)

The paper refers to the appropriate Scriptures.

Evangelical Christians believe that justification is by faith alone, not by faith and sacraments such as water baptism.

A believer should be baptized but it is not salvific. It is a command for those who have been given salvation.

Additionally, baptism was done in Jesus' name during this period of transition from the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant, and from the authority of the priests to the authority of the apostles.

Matthew 28:18-20 indicates that it is perfectly fine to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Oneness Pentecostals not only add baptism in the name of Jesus Only, but they also believe in baptismal regeneration, and many believe if you don't speak in tongues, you are not saved.

Additionally, they are anti-Trinitarians and have subscribed to this idea that Trinitarians are deceived by false doctrine. The Trinity is plainly biblical.

I belonged to an anti-Trinitarian organization as a young man, until I came to a better understanding and realized they were false teachers.