Concerning Baptism In Jesus’ Name

If you don’t like long readings, do not read this post. It’s going to be lengthy. Someone recently asked a question on a blog concerning baptism, and this is designed to share the things concerning baptism that I have come to understand through studying the Scripture. I’m by no means a theologian, but I would like to share my thoughts on the subject. Here is the question that was asked.

 

How do you reconcile the words of Jesus Himself in Matthew 28:19 with baptizing a person in Jesus name?  Jesus said in Matthew 28:19, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

 

This is a great question and one that deserves an answer. Before we look at any other Scriptures, let’s take a closer look at this verse and the verses surrounding it to clarify who Jesus is talking to here.

 

The Great Commission

 

Matthew 28:16  Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

28:17  And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

Jesus was speaking to his 11 disciples at this time. Judas, who was one of the original twelve had already betrayed the Lord and took his life, reducing the number of apostles from 12 to ll. Jesus tells them in verse 18 that all power is given unto him in heaven and in earth, and using His authority, He gives them a command in verse 19. These were some of the last words spoken by Jesus to His disciples before he ascended to heaven, and many refer to this as The Great Commission.  Jesus mentions in verse 19 that he wants them to teach all nations and baptize them in the “name” which is singular. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not names but rather titles or ways in which the One true God manifested Himself.  We as humans have different roles or positions that we fill. I am a wife, mother and daughter, but that does not mean I am three persons. I am one person fulfilling different roles or relationships, and I only have one name.  I believe the apostles understood that the “name” that the Lord was referring to was Jesus, and they fulfilled this command of the Lord by baptizing in Jesus’ name.

 

I’d Rather Take The Words of Jesus

 

An argument I have heard brought up over the years by some is that they would rather take the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 than the words of Peter in Acts 2:38 when he told the group to whom he was preaching to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

The Bible states in II Timothy 3:16 ,“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: “

 

According to this verse, the words of Jesus would not carry any more weight than the words of Peter. Both were equally inspired by God as they spoke.  Jesus gave His apostles a command to teach, and he also gave them authority. Before He went to the cross, He even prayed for those in the future that would come to believe in Him through the teachings of the apostles.

 

 

In John 17 as we read about Jesus praying, we can see that he began praying for his disciples. (verse 6-20) In verse 20, Jesus mentions that He is not just praying for the disciples alone but for them which would come to believe on Him through their words.(the apostles words) John 17:20  Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

 

 

For this reason, I believe it’s important to look closely at what the apostles preached and taught, but before we do this, let’s take a look at what some of the other apostles wrote about Jesus’ last words before he ascended.

 

Mark and Luke’s Accounts

 

Mark 16:14  Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

16:15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

16:17  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

16:18  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

16:19  So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

16:20  And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

 

Here, we see again that Jesus is talking to the eleven disciples. In verse 15, he gives them the commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. In the next verse he tells them that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Believeth what? The gospel according to verse 15. In the light of verse 16, I find it hard to understand how some can say that baptism is not a part of the plan of salvation.

 

We can also read Luke’s account of Jesus’ last words to his disciples before his ascension.

 

Luk 24:33  And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, (The “they” in this verse is referring to the 2 that were on the road to Emmaus with Jesus. They had just returned and began to share with the disciples the things that had just happened to them.) While these two were speaking with the disciples, Jesus suddenly appears in the midst of them.

 

Luk 24:36  And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

 

Jesus begins to speak to them and give them some instruction.

 

 

 

Luk 24:44  And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Luk 24:45  Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Luk 24:46  And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Luk 24:47  And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Luk 24:48  And ye are witnesses of these things.

Luk 24:49  And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Luk 24:50  And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

Luk 24:51  And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Luk 24:52  And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

Luk 24:53  And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

 

Here in these verses, we can read about Jesus opening the understanding of His disciples. We do not see Jesus mentioning anything here about baptism, but take note of verse 47. Jesus tells his disciples that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name and that this should start in Jerusalem. This will be important later on in this post.

 

Before we go to the book of Acts to see what the apostles preached and to look at actual baptisms, I would like to share some Scriptures that talk about the importance of the name of Jesus.

 

That Wonderful Name

 

 

Act 4:10  Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Act 4:11  This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Act 4:12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

If baptism is a part of the plan of salvation, and there is salvation in the name of Jesus, then doesn’t it make sense that one would be baptized in the saving name?

 

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.

 

We pray for our food in Jesus’ name. We pray for the sick in Jesus’ name. Why would we not want to baptize in His name?

 

Philippians 2:6  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

2:7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

2:8  And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

2:9  Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

 

There is no greater name than the name of Jesus. Jesus said in Matthew that all power in heaven and in earth is given unto him. There is power in the name of Jesus! Why not be baptized in His powerful, saving name?

 

The First Sermon On The Birthday Of The Church

 

We looked at the verse in Luke already where Jesus told His disciples that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. This is exactly what happened in Acts the 2nd chapter.

 

As the spirit of God began to be poured out on the day of Pentecost(verses 1-4), a curious crowd began to gather around that wanted to know what was happening. Verses 14-36 record the words that Peter began to preach to them. At the conclusion of his message there were those that were “pricked in their hearts.” They were convicted of their sin. They knew that what Peter was saying was true. They wanted to know what they should do. We can read what Peter tells them in verse 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.

 

Let’s take a look again at Luke 24:47.

 

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

What were the first words out of Peter’s mouth? Repent! Then he told them to be baptized, and guess whose name they were supposed to use? Jesus! And why were they supposed to be baptized? Peter said it was for the remission of sins. Guess where this message was preached? Jerusalem! It’s all right there, and it’s what Jesus had told them to do in the book of Luke!

 

Remission of Sins

 

Hebrews 9:22  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

In reading this chapter of the book of Hebrews, we can understand that Jesus through shedding His blood became the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Without the shedding of His blood, we could have no remission or forgiveness for our sins. We must have His blood applied to us in order to have remission of sins. Just how do we get His blood applied to us? I believe it happens when we are water baptized in Jesus’ name.

 

In Acts 22, Paul recounts his conversion experience, and in verse 16 tells of the words that Ananias spoke to him concerning baptism.

 

Acts 22:16  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Using the Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary on e-sword(our computer Bible) I see that “wash away” in the Greek means to wash fully or have remitted.

 

Other Baptisms In The Bible

 

Believers in Samaria

 

Act 8:14  Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Act 8:15  Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Act 8:16  (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

 

First Gentile Believers

 

Act 10:44  While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Act 10:45  And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:46  For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Act 10:47  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Act 10:48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Jesus is the name of the Lord? –see Acts 2:36, 9:4-5)

 

Believers At Ephesus Rebaptized

 

Act 19:1  And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Act 19:2  He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Act 19:3  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

Act 19:4  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Act 19:5  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6  And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act 19:7  And all the men were about twelve.

 

These 12 men here were disciples of John the Baptist. They had already been baptized by John. If as some say, it does not matter how we are baptized, then why did these men allow Paul to rebaptize them in the name of Jesus?

 

 

Without exception, everyone that was baptized in the Bible was baptized in Jesus’ name.  

 

I apologize for such a long post, but I really felt I had to share it. The reason why this is so important to me is that the Bible gives an exhortation in Jude 3 to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.” I believe baptism is part of that faith and that it is effective when it is done the way Christ and the apostle’s taught. I am in no way trying to slam anybody or be judgmental, but I just wanted to share what the Bible has to say on this subject. Aren’t you glad I didn’t delve into historical references on baptism? 🙂

 

 

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Concerning Baptism In Jesus’ Name

  1. Hi,

    I saw your comment on someone else’s blog that led me to this post…and all I have to say is, wow!!! There are so many things in here that I agree with. I can tell that you have a beautiful faith, from your comment on the other blog, as well as your post here.

    Just to name a couple of things…

    I find it hard to understand how some can say that baptism is not a part of the plan of salvation.

    Amen!!!

    We must have His blood applied to us in order to have remission of sins. Just how do we get His blood applied to us? I believe it happens when we are water baptized in Jesus’ name.

    Amen!!! Amen!!!

    God bless….

    Carlus, thank you for stopping by and for your kind comments. I know not everybody will be in agreement with what I posted here, but I felt like I needed to share this. It’s definitely a topic for serious study, and this is by no means an exhaustive look at the subject. I pray that this will be something that will maybe spur someone on to further study. Jesus said in John 5:39, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. “ No matter how long we have been walking with God, there are always new things that we can glean from God’s Word. I hope to be growing and gleaning all the days of my life.

  2. Hi there! Yes, you are right, there is alot we don’t agree on! 🙂 But it is always fun to meet another person on this journey.

    I don’t believe in any way shape or form to be a salvation issue…. but thank you for your thoughts on this matter…

    In Him,
    Debs

    Hi Debs. Thanks for taking the time to drop in and read this post. If I felt this was only a side issue and not part of the plan of salvation, I wouldn’t be so concerned about putting it out there. All of us that claim Christianity must look at the Word of God and ultimately decide where we stand. I believe this is part of “working out our own salvation with fear and trembling” as referred to in Philippians 2:12. May God guide you on the journey.

    Respectfully,
    Carol

  3. It’s so clear in the scriptures that baptism in the Name of Jesus is an essential part of the plan of salvation. We must take heed to trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not to our own understanding. Proverbs 3:5.

    There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 16:25 How important it is for us to follow the bible and not our own understanding. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked Jeremiah 17:9. God help us to love truth and adhere to it.

    Hi Keek. Yes, I agree that we need to follow the Bible and not our own hearts. I too, believe that it is clear in Scripture that baptism in Jesus’ name is a necessary part of the plan of salvation. I mentioned to Pete earlier that I think part of the reason people don’t accept Jesus’ name baptism is due to a lack of understanding concerning the Godhead. The two definitely go hand in hand. Anyway, as always, thanks for coming by.

  4. Maybe I’m just being dense, but how is being baptized in the name of the Father, the SON, and the Holy Ghost not in Jesus name? Jesus IS the only begotten SON of God. This seems like a total non-issue to me. Just something else to further divide the already too fragmented church and confuse people.

    Hi Helen. Father, Son and Holy Ghost is not a “name”. I believe the apostles understood that the “name” refered to here was Jesus. Why else would all actual instances of baptism in the Bible be done in the name of Jesus? The apostles did not repeat Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:19, they fulfilled the command by baptizing in Jesus’ name. This is not a non-issue if you believe that Jesus is the saving name of God(Acts 4:12)and that that name is applied to us through water baptism. You are right about it being a dividing line. It’s been that way for years, and it probably always will be. I didn’t post this to try and confuse people. Somebody did ask a question about this, and I felt I needed to share some conclusions I’ve come to through teaching, prayer and study. I hope this will spur some folks on to further study, because I believe it’s important.

  5. Carol: This was good! It was long, admittedly, but well worth the effort to read and study. There is a tract (The Baptismal Formula In Scripture And History) that gives not only these great scriptural accounts of water baptism but also historical accounts from the apostles’ times to present day. I think it’s good. I do think it’s interesting that opponents of Jesus name baptism, while they say they disagree, do not give scriptural or historical references for their positions. It’s almost as if they value their own thoughts above scripture. We walk by faith (and I believe this to be faith especially in God’s word) not by sight (feelings). It’s also like Keek wrote in her comment about trusting in the Lord with our whole hearts and not leaning to our own understanding. I know that when faced with truth and light, it can be a bit “frightening” at first. Darkness doesn’t comprehend the light, but when light comes to the searching heart and to those who WANT it, it is the power of God unto salvation. Baptism in Jesus name is the baptismal light in our dispensation. Glorious post!

    Hi Tom. I agree that being faced with truth can sometimes be frightening, sometimes inconvenient, but when we submit and give ourselves over to the truth, it is liberating. Jesus said, ” And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32. I’m thankful for the truth that makes men free! Thank you for your kind comments, bro. Love ya!

  6. Sis. Connell, What a beautiful post! Excellent scriptures to back it all up. I am so glad that I know the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and it is JESUS! PROOF:

    In John 5:43 Jesus said; I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

    John 14:26 reads; But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you

    So, if Jesus came in His Father’s name and the Holy Ghost was sent in Jesus’ name then all three had the same name – JESUS! So what is the problem here? Why not baptize in the name of JESUS? Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are just titles like you said. They are not names. Any English teacher will confirm that.

    Like you said, We pray for our food in Jesus’ name. We pray for the sick in Jesus’ name. Why would we not want to baptize in His name?

    Awesome Post!

    Hi Jolene. Thank you for your kind comments. This was somewhat of a struggle to write, because I’m really not used to doing this type of writing, but I really felt strongly that God wanted me to do it, so I prayed and asked Him to guide me. So thankful for the name of Jesus and for the day that my sins were washed away in His wonderful, saving name! There is nothing like it.

  7. Hi, Carol

    I believe you’re right about the name of Jesus being vital. It isn’t just the name, though, but rather all that name represents–which is to say, all of Who and What Jesus is. This is who we’re entering into, and who we pass through to enter it. It is the name of Jesus (in the spiritual sense of the name) that incenses the spiritual powers of wickedness. The name of Jesus is more than just a sound we make with our vocal cords (or it should and must be). The name of Jesus is our way of representing the person of Jesus.

    I believe that His name can also be used without power (witness the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13-16)). So it is more than a form or a ceremony using the proper words. The NAME represents all that a person is, which in Jesus case, includes His oneness with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

    Baptism is more than a ceremony. It is, in effect, a vow. It does something in the spiritual world, and if it can be done, it must be done. This is not to say that God will not be merciful to a person who fails to learn of this requirement. I would question the sincerity, however, of a person who knows the command and its importance, and refuses or neglects to follow it.

    We don’t always make baptism easy here in the US. I was refused baptism as a teen because I had been christened as an infant. I didn’t know enough to go elsewhere to find someone who would agree to baptize me, nor did it occur to me to do as some third-world new believers have done of necessity and “baptize” myself. (I’m sure that’s not scriptural, either, but their desire to obey is no doubt precious to God.) Some people are told by their church leaders to wait, either to prove their worthiness or because of logistics (it takes so long to fill up the tank and warm the water). While I believe this is misguided, I don’t think God necessarily intends to toss people into the lake of fire for it.

    I suspect we are in agreement on this, but you know how hard it is to resist “having one’s say” 😉

    God bless, Cindy

    Hi Cindy. Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to share your thoughts here. It’s interesting to read about these sons of Sceva in Acts 19. Apparently, they had heard Paul preach and maybe had seen him cast out an evil spirit. From what I read in Scripture, it sounds like they did not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. They referred to the Lord as “Jesus whom Paul preacheth.” Sounds like kind of an impersonal way to talk about the Savior to me. I do believe there are some prerequisites to baptism, namely that a person must believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and also that they must repent of their sins.

    I see an instance in Scripture too where John addressed some Pharisees and Saducees that had come to see him baptize.
    Matthew 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
    3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
    3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
    3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
    3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

    John told these men to bring forth fruits meet for repentance. In other words, let your life show that you have had a change of heart. Before my husband baptizes anyone, he will either teach them a Bible study about repentance and baptism or have another elder or teacher that he trusts teach them. He is especially careful with children that want to be baptized. We have seen some children that wanted to get baptized simply because they saw other people doing it. It was evident that they had not repented, and I believe if repentance does not precede baptism, you are just getting wet. However, he does encourage these children to keep seeking God, pray when it is time to pray and just draw closer to God. It’s not to prove their worthiness but to ensure that they understand what they are doing. Most of the children I have seen baptized, say under the age of 10 were baptized after they had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost(with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. – another topic which could open a can of worms) I believe it’s clear through study of the Scripture that one cannot receive the Holy Ghost without first repenting of sin.

    As far as a person wanting to baptize themself in obedience to the Word of God and because there was nobody else to do it, I would commend them. I would think that God, seeing the desire of this persons’ heart, would somehow make a way that they could be hooked up with someone who understood baptism and could baptism them. However, this is a hypothetical situation, and I think something like this would probably be the exception to the rule.

    Sorry for my long comment here, and I hope all of this is making sense. Again Cindy, thanks for dropping by. 🙂

  8. Hi Carol.

    I hopped on over from Debs blog and read *most* of this post and the subsequent comments.

    I suppose you could say that I disagree with much of what you cite above – it’s pretty standard apostolic teaching.

    I do have one question that nobody I’ve spoken to has really ever given a decent answer. Perhaps you could take a shot at it?

    If the name of Jesus is so important – vital for baptism which in turn is vital for salvation, then why do we use an anglicized form of a Latin form of a Greek form of His Aramaic given name?

    I’m not trying to be flippant here, I really am curious as to why it is so important to invoke His name for so many things, that titles aren’t good enough – it must be the name, but then we don’t even bother to pronounce His name correctly?

    Yeshua, Y’shua, or even Joshua would be closer to His actual name.

    Hi Bd4guy,

    Thanks for dropping by my blog and for your question. Good question. I would like to answer your question, but I want to be able to give it the time it deserves too, so I will be back by later to give a response. I believe what I say will make sense if you are sincere.

    Blessings,

    Carol

    1. Carol,

      Please understand that I am always sincere. I went through the rest of your post and pulled out points of disagreement. To be clear, most of the time I am not disputing what the doctrine teaches, I am pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies with the teaching. I am also not trying to talk you out of your beliefs but merely to apply better scriptural evidence and reasoning – hopefully without interpretation, drawing conclusions, or falling back on belief. If that doesn’t make sense – I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

      On to my commentary:

      “I am one person fulfilling different roles or relationships, and I only have one name.”

      I don’t think you really believe that. Do you have children? Obviously you do, because you home school. Do you only respond to your children if they address you as Carol? Or do you also respond to “Mommy”, “Mama”, or “Mother”? Certainly your title is Mother – but I am guessing that even if your child lets out a yelp you will respond to them, and I’d be quite surprised if you don’t respond to Mommy as well.. Does your husband ever call you “Honey” or “baby” or “sweetheart”? You probably have little pet names for him too.

      Certainly the God of the Universe, with whom we have relationship, understands when we are crying out to Him. We understand when our loved ones are addressing us; can you imagine God just sitting there waiting for us to address Him in a certain way? Really?

      “I believe the apostles understood that the “name” that the Lord was referring to was Jesus, and they fulfilled this command of the Lord by baptizing in Jesus’ name.”

      You are absolutely entitled to your belief – but this is not a sound Scriptural proof, merely opinion. This is really Pentecostal/apostolic teaching – no direct Biblical reference addresses this position. It is an assumption that has to be made for your doctrine to work.
      “The Bible states in II Timothy 3:16 ,’All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.’ According to this verse, the words of Jesus would not carry any more weight than the words of Peter. Both were equally inspired by God as they spoke.”
      There are a couple problems here. First, you are using the words of Paul to assert that Jesus’ and Peter’s words are to be regarded equally. Second, if their words are to be regarded equally, then one might conclude that both statements are valid – that is, they can be are equally relevant. By stating that baptism must be in the name of Jesus, you are putting Peter’s words above Jesus’ words. That is as wrong as stating that Jesus’ words are to be held higher than Peter’s – using your logic. If both are to be regarded equally, then either/or must apply. Third, stating that Jesus’ words are inspired by God seems to be a bit of a misnomer in that He is God. Jesus’ words were inspired by Himself – doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

      “In verse 15, he gives them the commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. In the next verse he tells them that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Believeth what? The gospel according to verse 15. In the light of verse 16, I find it hard to understand how some can say that baptism is not a part of the plan of salvation.”

      Here Jesus commands His disciples (and/or all Believers) to preach the Gospel to every CREATURE. Did Jesus mean that literally? Does your church have a zoo ministry? Have you shared the Gospel message with your dog, cat, hamster, and canary? Of course not; Jesus was speaking metaphorically of the responsibility to share the Gospel with everyone – all peoples, races, sexes, nations. Verse 16 does not state that if you believeth not and have not been baptized you will be damned – only the statement about belief. It seems that it is possible then to be baptized and not saved – because of disbelief, so the key in both parts of the statement is belief.

      The paradox for this statement is the thief on the cross. He merely believed, and Jesus promised he would be with Him in paradise. The consistent message of Scripture is belief – with the occasional mention of baptism (unfortunately it is not specified whether this is water baptism, spirit baptism, or both).

      “Before we go to the book of Acts to see what the apostles preached and to look at actual baptisms, I would like to share some Scriptures that talk about the importance of the name of Jesus.”

      This is more of a nit pick, but you say “before we go to the book of Acts” and then proceed to cite three scriptures from Acts. Limiting your discussion to other Scripture that speaks of the importance of the name of Jesus would be a more compelling presentation.
      “There is no greater name than the name of Jesus. Jesus said in Matthew that all power in heaven and in earth is given unto him. There is power in the name of Jesus! Why not be baptized in His powerful, saving name?”
      The power belongs to Jesus – not to His name. Jesus said it Himself. There is certainly power in calling upon Jesus – but I don’t think it’s the word itself; I think it is Jesus himself. Anything less is reducing the name Jesus to superstition and hocus-pocus.
      Without exception, everyone that was baptized in the Bible was baptized in Jesus’ name.
      I really don’t understand how you can make this claim, especially right after you cite the verse, “Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.” Also, Jesus Himself received John’s baptism. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that Jesus was Himself baptized in His own name. It could have happened that way, but we simply don’t know for sure.

      The middle sections of your post where you say, “doesn’t that make sense?” in several different ways – I’d say I’d pretty much agree with most of what you’ve cited. I do take issue with using Scripture to emphasize the importance of baptism, and then bundling that together with the “in Jesus’ name” component. Two separate and distinct issues, that I would hope can be addressed separately. Making “if A = B and B = C then A = C” comparisons is compelling, but I’m not sure that’s what you’ve actually done here.

      Don’t kill yourself trying to respond to all of this; I’d be happy if you just tuck it away so that as you pursue further understanding of Scripture you’ll remember these comments and dig even deeper for the truth.

      Blessings back at you!

      and my name is Jeff – but you can call me badguy, b4dguy, bad, or Mr. Bad. I’ll respond to most…(there’s those pesky names again.)

      Jeff,

      Thanks for letting me know your name. Generally, if I do know a person’s name, I will use it when addressing them. Perhaps it was a bad word choice on my part to say “if you’re sincere”. I don’t know hardly anything about you, let alone the contents of your heart. Only God knows that. You’ve thrown a lot out here that I’m not prepared to answer right now(thanks for the suggestion not to kill myself trying to respond to everything 🙂 ), but I will consider what you have said and perhaps at a later time discuss this.

      In His grace,

      Carol

  9. Hi Jeff,

    Since as I stated in my post, I am not a theologian, and because it does take a huge amount of time for me to put down my thoughts on a subject like this in a way that makes sense, this kind of writing is difficult for me)I am going to post a link here to someone who has taken time out to study and give what I feel is a good answer to the question you have posed here.

    I hope this will be helpful.

    http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/yeshua.htm

    Blessings,

    Carol Connell

    1. Wow. that was a very long-winded article that basically says there’s no way to know exactly what Jesus’ name was back in the day, or how to pronounce it.

      Which is exactly the point. The author states that it’s not the name but the person which is important. Whatever name is used, or pronunciation is used is not important – but that the name is associated with the Messiah is the issue…

      …just like using a title in lieu of the name. In fact, it might be better to use a title which is not in dispute, than an name that is not the original name that was uttered when our Lord walked the Earth.

      Thanks.

      Hi Jeff. You can come to whatever conclusion you want concerning the name of Jesus. I’m just thankful that when I was 16, I was enough of a simpleton to believe that the way the apostles baptized in the book of Acts where acutal baptisms were recorded was the Biblical way to be baptized. The only group of people that Jesus ever prayed for concerning who we should believe concerning teaching about Him were the apostles. (John 17:20) I believe there is an element of faith, concerning the name of Jesus that cannot be overlooked. It’s not just the name, but faith in the name. (Acts 3:16) We could probably go round and round on Jesus’ name baptism and never agree. If you really are interested in discussing it with men who are much more intellectual than I, I’d be happy to give you some e-mail addresses. I didn’t start this blog for the purpose of debate, and I don’t want it to turn into that, so I am ending this discussion for now.

      Best regards,

      Carol

      1. No worries Carol. Sorry to inundate you with so much here. We both after all have lives…

        You did actually give me a little insight that I had not gotten before about the apostolic doctrine – for that I thank you.

        I’ve got apostolics living under my roof – so I’m pretty well set with resources.

        fyi – my wife home schooled for 8 years. Our youngest is in college now, so she’s kinda retired. It was fun while it lasted though.

        Jeff, hats off to you and your wife for homeschooling. I know from personal experience that it’s not easy, but it is worthwhile. I’ve got 4 more years to go before we are done. From our correspondence I figured you must have had some experiences with apostolics before, but I didn’t guess you had some living under your roof. You probably have some interesting conversations in your home. It probably would be captivating to be a fly on the wall for one of those occurences. 🙂

  10. Carol, thank you so much for your post. I am greatly persuaded and relieved. I also believe in baptism in Jesus name and believe that water baptism is required for salvation (Jesus said it, so what other proof do we need!) A scripture that I have found helpful regarding the power of Acts 2:38 is when Peter confesses Jesus to be the Christ. As you know, Jesus responds that Peter is blessed by God because only God can give this revelation. Jesus also went on to state that in Matthew 16:18-19 that upon him (Peter) Jesus will build his church. Peter preached on Pentecost Acts 2:38. “Repentance, baptism and spiritual re-birth are all required for salvation.” This was applicable to Jews and Gentiles alike. Now either Jesus ( God made flesh) was a very bad judge of character and didn’t know what He was doing when he gave Peter this mantle of authority, or Acts 2:38 as given to Peter is a God-given ordinance for salvation.

    One thing I also like to point out to people regarding the “titles” as opposed to the “name” of Jesus in Matthew 18:19 is that it clearly states “the name” of “the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” It does not say the “names,” it clearly says “the name.” There is only one name under Heaven given to men in which we must be saved. God tries to make salvation and deliverance as clear to us as possible. He gave us one name in this age to use. That name is Jesus.

    God bless and keep up the good work!

    Aaron, thank you for your encouraging words. If you’ve read through the comments on this post, you will have seen that there are some that strongly oppose this message. I think I really opened up a hornet’s nest in writing about this, but I really felt it is what God wanted,(and I really prayed for guidance before I wrote) so I gave it my best shot. I agree with the points you have made here, except for the church being built on Peter. I believe the church is built on the revelation that Peter had of Jesus being the Christ, God manifested in the flesh. (see Ephesians 2:20, I Peter 2:5-8, I Corinthians 10:1-4) So thankful to know that Jesus is the rock of our salvation. May you be blessed as you continue to study His Word.
    Sincerely in Christ,

    Carol

  11. P.S.: I also believe that the blood is applied after baptism. I am trying to get a study together. Can you send me any references? I would greatly appreciate it.

    Aaron, check out this link. http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/index.htm There are several articles on this site dealing with baptism and Jesus’ name, written by some men that have really studied much more thoroughly than I have. I think you’ll find plenty of material here to help you, and most of the authors leave an e-mail address, so you can contact them if you have further questions.

    In Jesus’ name,

    Carol

  12. I chose not to comment on the entire article, and I too do not consider myself a theologian. I consider myself a student of the Word. My comments are below.

    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.

    What comes to my attention from this verse is that “everything” is to be done in Jesus’ name. I do not believe that this means to say the phrase “In Jesus’ name” in order to fulfill this. To do something in the name of another did not require saying “in the name of ….”. In fact, with respect to baptism, what is often overlooked is the fact that there were several baptisms practiced in the first century: John’s baptism, proselyte baptism, ceremonial baptism for ritual purity, and pagan baptism of the dead, finally Christian-discipleship baptism. Christain-discipleship baptism was a command of the Lord Jesus thus Luke may have simply wanted to clarify to Jewish readers of Acts that these baptisms were in association with Messiah Jesus and “not” the other various baptisms that commonly took place. In no instance does Luke ever record the words that the apostles spoke over a candidate if any. Baptism in Jesus’ name does not mean that a invocation of Jesus’ name had be called over the disciple being baptized. Nor does baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit mean that either.

    2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

    I believe this verse teaches that Jesus was given the Name of God. Now you probably believe this as well, but I probably differ with you here. You see, the prophet Jeremiah prophesied that the Messiah would be called “YHWH our righteousness”, Jer. 23:6 (?). This indicates that Messiah has been bestowed the Name of God, the one God revealed to Moses. Messiah doesn’t have to literally be called YHWH in order to fulfill this, much like he doesn’t have to literally be called Emmanuel to be “God with us”. The thing is this, God revealed His Name as YHWH, rendered “LORD” in English bibles, Ex. 3:15, and said that this is His eternal name, i.e. “this is My name ‘forever'”. Hebrews 1 says that Messiah inherited a Name, more superior to that given angels. I believe again that this a reference to the Father’s Name, the difference being the his earthly name Jesus or Yeshua is a common name, but his inherited name is of His Father, being YHWH, the Divine Name. I think we miss it especially when we think of the Holy Spirit coming in the name of Jesus, because does the HS really have a name as such? I don’t think so. Interpreters try to see it this way, but thinking Hebraically, I don’t believe the apostles saw it that way.

    This leaves us with the modern debate over baptism. Should it be done in the name of Jesus only or in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I believe baptism should be descriptive, not formulaic. Despcriptive in that baptism should be with reference to Messiah, his death, burial and resurrection, but the truth is this, that the Son brings us to the Father, and fills us the with Holy Spirit. Enough said.

    Hello, Donald. In my mind, there’s no debate over the subject of baptism. I choose to believe what I read in the book of Acts where you can read about actual baptisms. The only “name” that is ever mentioned when a person was baptized was the name of Jesus. Since Jesus said that all power in heaven and earth was given unto him and Acts 4:12 says that there is salvation in no other name, then why not be baptized in the name of Jesus? That’s the way I feel about it.
    Thank you for stopping by and taking the time to comment.

  13. Baptism is only valid in the name of Jesus only. Colossians 3:17 states that name alone is to be used for all things. Acts 4:10-12 Jesus alone has saving power. He alone has all power and authority said Matthew 28:18. Acts 2:38 through 22:16 only give Jesus name the only way to God! The church started in the book of Acts. Paul, Peter, and all the Apostle did so in Jesus name and by immersion. History alone shows that Catholics changed the formula by Gnostic and pagan influence. The Protestants accepted this lie during the Reformationperiod in the 1600’s. today, only a few obey the word of God. The result will be disaster for all who disobey it, said Matthew 7:21-23.

    Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/668816-baptism-how-many-names.html#ixzz0YsMVbYN3

    Hi Steve. I wholeheartedly believe that baptism in Jesus’ name is the correct, Biblical way to be baptized. Thanks for the link as well.

  14. BRITANICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

    The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the Second Century. – 11th Edit., Vol. 3, ppg. 365-366.

    CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

    The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of the Trinity Doctrine in the Second Century.

    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

    HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

    Christian baptism was administered using the words, “in the name of Jesus.” – Vol. 2, pg. 377. Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. – Vol. 2, pg. 389. 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.” – Vol. 2, pg. 377 on Acts 2:38

    Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. – Vol. 2, pg. 263.
    Hello Steve. Thank you for taking the time to visit my blog and share these references.
    Blessings,
    Carol Connell

  15. Steve says, “Colossian 3:17 states the name alone is to be used for all things”.

    Correct. But how do you do “all things in ‘word’ and ‘deed'” in the name? Do you honestly give money to someone for charity saying “in Jesus name” to that person?

    The is a difference between the name “Jesus” and the “name of” Jesus. For even in the NT the word “name” doesn’t have a single meaning. Look at Revelation where to the church of Sardis Jesus says “you have a few names that have not defiled their robes” or look in the OT where “the name of the LORD is a strong tower, the righteous ‘runneth into it’ and are safe”. So definetly the “name” as spoken is not what is indicated, but the being itself. Thus in Jesus (the being) there is salvation alone and in none other. You make it the personal (might I add “very common” Jewish name) the salvation alone.

  16. Steve wrote: HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
    “Christian baptism was administered using the words “in the name of Jesus”…”

    Might I ask where in the Bible this is stated? It is the opinion that baptism in Jesus’ name means “using the words ‘in the name of Jesus'”. You can say ‘in the name of Jesus’ over a lighting a cigarette and it won’t be in His name. In fact, I do not at all believe Luke has the same thing in mind when writing it through the Holy Ghost as we 21st Century Western Americans have when reading the KJV and NIV, etc. You have to go back to the 1st Century mindset of the Hebraic writers who wrote under the unction of the Holy Spirit. It’s quite different in their culture, we might say something that they wouldn’t understand. They also say things that we don’t understand until we understand the culture. For instance, what did David mean when he said he came to Goliath in the name of YHWH of hosts? If Jesus had said it, we’d say Jesus’s name is the Father’s name. But if David said it, we say David came on the God the Father’s behalf. That’s how Oneness theological arguements concerning the names of the Father and Son are so selective in their reasoning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s