The Error is Baptism in Jesus name only for salvation
- Thread starter CS1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Because they could not obey laws given by God.
Therefore a sacrifice had to be made to cover the sins of Isreal.
If that's the case then was baptism needed?
I have not done that but I think you have a good qestion. However, it would be fair for some of us to say that you have done the very thing you accuse me of doing
.Truth: water baptism doesn't save or give eternal life; Jesus does. The context of Belief is faith in action. It is not a mental acknowledgment of accepting something as real to say, 'I believe one must act in faith.' The Holy Spirit convicts one to see their need for water baptism? Or their Need for the Lord Jesus and forgiveness of sins. Confessing and believing in Jesus as the savior is what Jesus said in John chapter 3 and what Paul reiterated in Romans chapter 10:9-11. Water baptism is an effect of Jesus as the cause of salvation, and faith in Him produces obedience. IF you love HIM you will obey HIM 1 John 5
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God,
when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
In OT? Being baptized for remissoin of sins did not start until JESUS ascended the second time.
1 Corinthians 10:1-2
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
I have not done that but I think you have a good qestion. However, it would be fair for some of us to say that you have done the very thing you accuse me of doing
Truth: water baptism doesn't save or give eternal life; Jesus does. The context of Belief is faith in action. It is not a mental acknowledgment of accepting something as real to say, 'I believe one must act in faith.' The Holy Spirit convicts one to see their need for water baptism? Or their Need for the Lord Jesus and forgiveness of sins. Confessing and believing in Jesus as the savior is what Jesus said in John chapter 3 and what Paul reiterated in Romans chapter 10:9-11. Water baptism is an effect of Jesus as the cause of salvation, and faith in Him produces obedience. IF you love HIM you will obey HIM 1 John 5
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God,
when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
I"m done with you, one can only plant so many seeds. All of your games isn't getting anywhere. Best of Luck.
Nope,
The Lord can save those who are on their deathbed if they repent and call out to Him, as stated in John 3:16-20 and Romans 10:9-10. If they die before they were water baptized but repented and called on the name of the Lord, they Shall be saved. Not maybe or possibly. That is where you are in error. I am not lying I am not limiting God's ability to save anyone at any time as HE so desires.
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.
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.
Part Two:
What Does “In The Name Of …” mean?
Oneness proponents have a simplistic view of what it means to be baptized “in the name,” as if there is a specific magic incantation that must be uttered in order for baptism to “work” and the person to truly be saved.
Colossians 3:17 says:
Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.
Does this mean you rise out of bed and, all day long, you say:
“I wash my face in the name of Jesus.” I put on clothes in the name of Jesus. I eat my Captain Crunch in the name of Jesus …”
Or maybe Colossians 3:17 just means that you do everything under the authority — and in worship of — Jesus.
It’s the same with prayer. Praying, “in the name of Jesus” means praying as directed and authorized by Jesus (as in the Lord’s Prayer, which does not include any reference to God the Son). You don’t have to literally say, “In the name of Jesus” for God to hear your prayer (not that there’s anything wrong with saying, “in the name of Jesus”).
In 1 Corinthians 1:14-15, Paul writes:
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
Paul wasn’t worried that anyone would have accused him of literally saying, “I now baptize you in the name of Paul.” He meant, “No one can accuse me of baptizing under my own authority, instead of Christ’s.”
Baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38) means baptism as commanded by the risen Lord (in Matthew 28:19), not something different.
What Does “In The Name Of …” mean?
Oneness proponents have a simplistic view of what it means to be baptized “in the name,” as if there is a specific magic incantation that must be uttered in order for baptism to “work” and the person to truly be saved.
Colossians 3:17 says:
Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.
Does this mean you rise out of bed and, all day long, you say:
“I wash my face in the name of Jesus.” I put on clothes in the name of Jesus. I eat my Captain Crunch in the name of Jesus …”
Or maybe Colossians 3:17 just means that you do everything under the authority — and in worship of — Jesus.
It’s the same with prayer. Praying, “in the name of Jesus” means praying as directed and authorized by Jesus (as in the Lord’s Prayer, which does not include any reference to God the Son). You don’t have to literally say, “In the name of Jesus” for God to hear your prayer (not that there’s anything wrong with saying, “in the name of Jesus”).
In 1 Corinthians 1:14-15, Paul writes:
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
Paul wasn’t worried that anyone would have accused him of literally saying, “I now baptize you in the name of Paul.” He meant, “No one can accuse me of baptizing under my own authority, instead of Christ’s.”
Baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38) means baptism as commanded by the risen Lord (in Matthew 28:19), not something different.
Part Three:
Matthew 28:19 for Baptizers / Acts 2:38 for Baptizees
One of the most important distinctions often overlooked in baptism discussions is the difference in perspective between Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 and Peter’s words in Acts 2:38.
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus is speaking directly to baptizers—those who will carry out the ordinance. He instructs them to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This is the official formula given to the Church by Christ Himself.
In contrast, Acts 2:38 reflects Peter addressing baptizees—those who are about to be baptized. He says, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ…” Here, Peter is not prescribing a liturgical formula to the baptizers, but emphasizing Jesus as the authority under which the baptism is taking place. It’s a public declaration of allegiance to Christ.
Acts 22:16 sheds even more light:
“Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”
The grammar here is key—the one being baptized is the one calling on the name of the Lord. This moment is what we refer to as the confession of faith.
At our church, we honor both commands by recognizing this two-part dynamic in every baptism:
In this way, we fulfill both Matthew 28:19 (instruction to baptizers) and Acts 2:38 (response of baptizees). It’s not either/or—it’s both/and. This practice preserves the biblical integrity of baptism while embracing the richness of Scripture’s full witness.
Matthew 28:19 for Baptizers / Acts 2:38 for Baptizees
One of the most important distinctions often overlooked in baptism discussions is the difference in perspective between Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 and Peter’s words in Acts 2:38.
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus is speaking directly to baptizers—those who will carry out the ordinance. He instructs them to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This is the official formula given to the Church by Christ Himself.
In contrast, Acts 2:38 reflects Peter addressing baptizees—those who are about to be baptized. He says, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ…” Here, Peter is not prescribing a liturgical formula to the baptizers, but emphasizing Jesus as the authority under which the baptism is taking place. It’s a public declaration of allegiance to Christ.
Acts 22:16 sheds even more light:
“Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”
The grammar here is key—the one being baptized is the one calling on the name of the Lord. This moment is what we refer to as the confession of faith.
At our church, we honor both commands by recognizing this two-part dynamic in every baptism:
- The baptizer asks: “What is your sacred confession?”
- The candidate replies: “Jesus is Lord.”
- Then the baptizer declares:
“Upon your confession of faith, I now baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
In this way, we fulfill both Matthew 28:19 (instruction to baptizers) and Acts 2:38 (response of baptizees). It’s not either/or—it’s both/and. This practice preserves the biblical integrity of baptism while embracing the richness of Scripture’s full witness.
Finally:
How Did The Early Church Really Do It?
First, these are not magical incantations. Baptism is not hokus-pokus salvation. Those who insist that Acts 2:38 must be recited in order for the baptism to “work” are guilty of turning baptism into a spell.
But what did the first Christians say as they were baptizing converts? Oneness/Jesus’ Only practitioners say that the book of Acts proves their claim. But if Luke, the writer of Acts, had intended to record word-for-word the exact phrase the baptizer was to utter, then why didn’t he write it the same way every time?
The emphasis in every verse is on the person being baptized, not the one doing the baptizing. This is why we don’t read “they were baptized by Paul, who said, ‘in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’”
But consider Acts 19:2-3. Paul comes to some disciples at Ephesus:
He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
Isn’t it odd that Paul answers the admission, “we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit,” by blurting, “Into what then were you baptized?”
His response would make no sense, except that Paul can’t understand how they could have heard the baptizer say, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” and yet claim they’d never heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. As soon as they confess their ignorance about the third Person of the Trinity, Paul knows that something was amiss with their baptisms.
How Did The Early Church Really Do It?
First, these are not magical incantations. Baptism is not hokus-pokus salvation. Those who insist that Acts 2:38 must be recited in order for the baptism to “work” are guilty of turning baptism into a spell.
But what did the first Christians say as they were baptizing converts? Oneness/Jesus’ Only practitioners say that the book of Acts proves their claim. But if Luke, the writer of Acts, had intended to record word-for-word the exact phrase the baptizer was to utter, then why didn’t he write it the same way every time?
- Acts 2:38 “… in the name of Jesus Christ …”
- 8:16 “… in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
- 10:48 “… in the name of Jesus Christ.”
- 19:5 “ … in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
- 22:16 “… calling on His name.”
The emphasis in every verse is on the person being baptized, not the one doing the baptizing. This is why we don’t read “they were baptized by Paul, who said, ‘in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’”
But consider Acts 19:2-3. Paul comes to some disciples at Ephesus:
He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
Isn’t it odd that Paul answers the admission, “we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit,” by blurting, “Into what then were you baptized?”
His response would make no sense, except that Paul can’t understand how they could have heard the baptizer say, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” and yet claim they’d never heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. As soon as they confess their ignorance about the third Person of the Trinity, Paul knows that something was amiss with their baptisms.
