The Baptismal Formula - Revision history

Admin: /* What does the scriptural witness tell us? */

2021-12-06T13:41:13Z

What does the scriptural witness tell us?

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 6 December 2021
Line 155:		Line 155:
	What is clear from the scriptural references is that there was no "magic formula" for water baptism. There are no exact words that are required to be spoken. As opposed to what William Branham taught, there is certainly no requirement that when a person is baptized, the words must be spoken over them... "I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."		What is clear from the scriptural references is that there was no "magic formula" for water baptism. There are no exact words that are required to be spoken. As opposed to what William Branham taught, there is certainly no requirement that when a person is baptized, the words must be spoken over them... "I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

	It is also interesting to note that only in the book of Acts are there actual references to the baptismal formula. We can't really know what any of the other apostles said when they baptized converts? What did Matthew say? We don't know.		There are a couple of additional points of interest.

			When Jesus stated “...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...”, it is not “in the names of” but “in the name of.” The Greek is very clearly singular. There is only one name referenced. “The name” is used of Jesus and God in many places in the NT. This is the name of the one God, much as it says in Phil 2.9: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name”

			The second is that the text uses “eis” (usually “into”) rather than “en” (usually “in”). This fits with the point that there are no magic words. It is not as if a specific formula for baptism is in mind. That would have required “en”. While “eis” can have the meaning of “en”, it has more the flavor of an almost directional movement into fellowship with the entity referred by “the name.”

			I think there is good textual reason for the conclusion that Matt 28:19 is not an alternative to the baptismal statements elsewhere in Acts but rather is entirely consistent with them. Baptism is “into” the fellowship of “the name.”

			Finally, it is not very likely that Matt 28:19 contains the exact words of Jesus, of course, because he normally spoke in Aramaic not Greek, but we can assume that the translation was made as it is for good reason.

			It is also interesting to note that only in the book of Acts are there actual references to the baptismal formula. We can't really know what any of the other apostles said when they baptized converts. What did Matthew say? We don't know.

	==When did the baptismal formula change?==		==When did the baptismal formula change?==

Admin at 17:34, 9 November 2021

2021-11-09T17:34:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 9 November 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Top of Page}}		{{Top of Page}}
			{{Template:Baptism}}
	=The Question=		=The Question=

Admin at 15:54, 9 November 2021

2021-11-09T15:54:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 9 November 2021
Line 2:		Line 2:
	=The Question=		=The Question=

	We have received a number of questions that specifically relate to the baptismal ~~forumula~~ (the words said over the person being baptized). Here is an amalgam of some of the questions we have received:		We have received a number of questions that specifically relate to the baptismal formula (the words said over the person being baptized). Here is an amalgam of some of the questions we have received:

	:''No one was ever baptized by the Apostles in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If it was permissible then surely there would be some record in scripture that baptism could or should be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But this does not exist.		:''No one was ever baptized by the Apostles in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If it was permissible then surely there would be some record in scripture that baptism could or should be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But this does not exist.
Line 23:		Line 23:

	#water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.		#water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.
	#Baptism is "''the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone to heaven and is at the right-hand side of God, ruling over all angels and heavenly authorities and powers.''<ref>American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1992), 1 Pe 3:21–22.</ref>		#Baptism is "''the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone to heaven and is at the right-hand side of God, ruling over all angels and heavenly authorities and powers.''<ref>American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1992), 1 Peter 3:21–22.</ref>
	#Both the Acts 2:38 formula and the Matthew 28:19 formula are acceptable because they are both based in scripture.		#Both the Acts 2:38 formula and the Matthew 28:19 formula are acceptable because they are both based in scripture.
	#While baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (or a similar variant) may be the preferred method of baptism for some, those espousing the Acts 2:38 formula cannnot exclude those baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19. If someone comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith, and is then baptized in the Matthew 28:19 formula as shown in example #2 above, there is no basis to excluded from the church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7.</ref>		#While baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (or a similar variant) may be the preferred method of baptism for some, those espousing the Acts 2:38 formula cannnot exclude those baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19. If someone comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith, and is then baptized in the Matthew 28:19 formula as shown in example #2 above, there is no basis to excluded from the church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7.</ref>
Line 55:		Line 55:
	===Example #1===		===Example #1===

	I attended a baptismal service in Hawaii a number of years ago and was asked to assist in the baptism of several new converts. I was astounded by the baptismal ~~forumula~~ that this pastor used. As the individual was immersed in water (in the ocean) the pastor said these words:		I attended a baptismal service in Hawaii a number of years ago and was asked to assist in the baptism of several new converts. I was astounded by the baptismal formula that this pastor used. As the individual was immersed in water (in the ocean) the pastor said these words:

	:''I now baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I baptize you in the name of Adonai Yeshua HaMashiach.		:''I now baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I baptize you in the name of Adonai Yeshua HaMashiach.
Line 97:		Line 97:
	If one leaves the message and does not re-examine all of their "message tainted" beliefs, it is likely they will be at odds with some of the beliefs that the church has always held.		If one leaves the message and does not re-examine all of their "message tainted" beliefs, it is likely they will be at odds with some of the beliefs that the church has always held.

	According to oneness teaching, the only valid baptism is in “Jesus’ name” and not “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Trinitarian baptism is seen as a Roman Catholic error that was forced on the church in the ~~Nicean~~ Creed in A.D. 325. Therefore, anyone who received Trinitarian baptism was not fully Christian.<ref>Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, 1901–2001 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 141.</ref>		According to oneness teaching, the only valid baptism is in “Jesus’ name” and not “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Trinitarian baptism is seen as a Roman Catholic error that was forced on the church in the Nicaean Creed in A.D. 325. Therefore, anyone who received Trinitarian baptism was not fully Christian.<ref>Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, 1901–2001 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 141.</ref>

	Please go to [[Did William Branham Teach Oneness?\|our article on Oneness theology for detailed information on specific doctrinal issues]].		Please go to [[Did William Branham Teach Oneness?\|our article on Oneness theology for detailed information on specific doctrinal issues]].
Line 160:		Line 160:
	When was the first person baptized in the Trinitarian baptismal formula? We don't know. But it was certainly hundreds of years earlier than the date proposed by William Branham. Could it have been that some were baptizing in the Trinitarian formula during the time of the disciples? That is definitely possible. Again, we just don't know and it is impossible to arrive at any definitive conclusion.		When was the first person baptized in the Trinitarian baptismal formula? We don't know. But it was certainly hundreds of years earlier than the date proposed by William Branham. Could it have been that some were baptizing in the Trinitarian formula during the time of the disciples? That is definitely possible. Again, we just don't know and it is impossible to arrive at any definitive conclusion.

	==Why did the baptismal ~~forumula~~ change?==		==Why did the baptismal formula change?==

	If the primary formula for baptism changed, it was likely that it had to do with counteracting false teaching on the Godhead.		If the primary formula for baptism changed, it was likely that it had to do with counteracting false teaching on the Godhead.

Admin: /* Answer */

2021-11-09T15:53:13Z

Answer

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 9 November 2021
Line 20:		Line 20:
	=Answer=		=Answer=

	I do not believe that a person baptized in the ~~second example~~ can be excluded from the body of Christ solely on the ~~basis~~ of ~~how they were baptized~~. What is important is not the exact words that are said. Rather, it is that it is clear that the person is making a public declaration of their faith in Jesus Christ through water baptism. It is important to understand that:		I do not believe that a person being baptized in a sincere attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus can be excluded from the body of Christ solely on following Matt 28:19 rather than the examples outlined in the book of Acts. What is important is not the exact words that are said. Rather, it is that it is clear that the person is making a public declaration of their faith in Jesus Christ through water baptism. It is important to understand that:

	#water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.		#water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.
	#Both the Acts 2:38 ~~forumula~~ and the Matthew 28:19 formula are acceptable because they are both based in scripture.		#Baptism is "''the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone to heaven and is at the right-hand side of God, ruling over all angels and heavenly authorities and powers.''<ref>American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1992), 1 Pe 3:21–22.</ref>
			#Both the Acts 2:38 formula and the Matthew 28:19 formula are acceptable because they are both based in scripture.
	#While baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (or a similar variant) may be the preferred method of baptism for some, those espousing the Acts 2:38 formula cannnot exclude those baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19. If someone comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith, and is then baptized in the Matthew 28:19 formula as shown in example #2 above, there is no basis to excluded from the church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7.</ref>		#While baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (or a similar variant) may be the preferred method of baptism for some, those espousing the Acts 2:38 formula cannnot exclude those baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19. If someone comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith, and is then baptized in the Matthew 28:19 formula as shown in example #2 above, there is no basis to excluded from the church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7.</ref>

Admin at 21:47, 7 November 2021

2021-11-07T21:47:31Z

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 We deal with this in more detail below.
 ==Examples==
@@ Line 128: / Line 148: @@
 Our view is that you can't.
 ==What does the scriptural witness tell us?==
@@ Line 157: / Line 157: @@
 ==When did the baptismal formula change?==
-When was the first person baptized in the Trinitarian baptismal formula?  Again, we don't know.  But it was certainly hundreds of years earlier than the date proposed by William Branham.  Could it have been that some were baptizing in the Trinitarian formula during the time of the disciples?  That is definitely possible.  Again, we just don't know and it is impossible to arrive at any definitive conclusion.
+When was the first person baptized in the Trinitarian baptismal formula?  We don't know.  But it was certainly hundreds of years earlier than the date proposed by William Branham.  Could it have been that some were baptizing in the Trinitarian formula during the time of the disciples?  That is definitely possible.  Again, we just don't know and it is impossible to arrive at any definitive conclusion.
 ==Why did the baptismal forumula change?==
@@ Line 218: / Line 210: @@
 "The Lord himself told his disciples that '''they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit''' . . . for indeed, '''legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity'''" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 - A.D. 248).
-=Some baptismal formulas that would not be acceptable=
+===Reference to Polycarp===
 It is clear that someone baptized in the name of William Branham (yes, it happens) would not have undergone Christian baptism.
@@ Line 226: / Line 226: @@
 :''Given that you believe that God sent William Branham, the last prophet to the last age, I now baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."
-If is clear that such baptism is not based on faith in Jesus Christ but rather in faith in William Branham as a prophet.
+If is clear that such baptism is not based on faith in Jesus Christ but rather in faith in William Branham as a prophet.  This is not what baptism is for.
 {{Bottom of Page}}
 [[Category: Unfinished articles]]

Admin: /* If you use the wrong formula are you out? */

2021-11-07T21:42:57Z

If you use the wrong formula are you out?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 7 November 2021
Line 84:		Line 84:
	What is the status of those who have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in accordance with Matthew 28:19?		What is the status of those who have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in accordance with Matthew 28:19?

	Are they unsaved? If so, then the list of people who would be excluded from Christianity would include:		Are they unsaved? Do they have reduced status? According to William Branham, they can't received the gift of the Holy Spirit. If they are out, then the list of people who would be excluded from Christianity would include:

	#John Wycliffe, d. 1384		#John Wycliffe, d. 1384

Admin: /* Derivation from a Oneness Christology */

2021-11-07T21:41:44Z

Derivation from a Oneness Christology

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 7 November 2021
Line 72:		Line 72:
	==Derivation from a Oneness Christology==		==Derivation from a Oneness Christology==

	When I left the message, I discarded everything that I had been taught while in the message. I started from scratch and decided to fully embrace "confessional orthodoxy" - the doctrines which the church has always believed.		When I left the message, I discarded everything that I had been taught while in the message. I started from scratch and decided to fully embrace "confessional orthodoxy" - the doctrines which the church has always believed. Because message theology was strongly influenced by the Oneness Pentecostal movement, there is a tendency to hold onto some of those same beliefs.

	If one leaves the message and does not re-examine all of their "message tainted" beliefs, ~~there~~ will ~~be a tendency to~~ be at odds with some of the beliefs that the church has always held. ~~Because message theology was strongly influenced by the Oneness Pentecostal movement, there is a tendency to hold onto some of those same beliefs.~~		If one leaves the message and does not re-examine all of their "message tainted" beliefs, it is likely they will be at odds with some of the beliefs that the church has always held.

	According to oneness teaching, the only valid baptism is in “Jesus’ name” and not “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Trinitarian baptism is seen as a Roman Catholic error that was forced on the church in the Nicean Creed in A.D. 325. Therefore, anyone who received Trinitarian baptism was not fully Christian.<ref>Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, 1901–2001 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 141.</ref>		According to oneness teaching, the only valid baptism is in “Jesus’ name” and not “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Trinitarian baptism is seen as a Roman Catholic error that was forced on the church in the Nicean Creed in A.D. 325. Therefore, anyone who received Trinitarian baptism was not fully Christian.<ref>Vinson Synan, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, 1901–2001 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 141.</ref>

	Please go to [[Did William Branham Teach Oneness?\|our article on Oneness theology for detailed information on ~~the teaching~~]].		Please go to [[Did William Branham Teach Oneness?\|our article on Oneness theology for detailed information on specific doctrinal issues]].

	==If you use the wrong formula are you out?==		==If you use the wrong formula are you out?==

Admin: /* Answer */

2021-11-07T21:39:41Z

Answer

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 7 November 2021
Line 19:		Line 19:

	=Answer=		=Answer=

			I do not believe that a person baptized in the second example can be excluded from the body of Christ solely on the basis of how they were baptized. What is important is not the exact words that are said. Rather, it is that it is clear that the person is making a public declaration of their faith in Jesus Christ through water baptism. It is important to understand that:

			#water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.
			#Both the Acts 2:38 forumula and the Matthew 28:19 formula are acceptable because they are both based in scripture.
			#While baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (or a similar variant) may be the preferred method of baptism for some, those espousing the Acts 2:38 formula cannnot exclude those baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19. If someone comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith, and is then baptized in the Matthew 28:19 formula as shown in example #2 above, there is no basis to excluded from the church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7.</ref>

			We deal with this in more detail below.

			==Examples==

			Here are a few examples from personal experience.

	===Example #1===		===Example #1===
Line 52:		Line 64:
	Given the whole focus on confirming the new convert's faith in Jesus Christ, I have no problem with how this church baptized people.		Given the whole focus on confirming the new convert's faith in Jesus Christ, I have no problem with how this church baptized people.

	==~~Conclusion~~==		===Example #3===

	I do not believe that a person baptized in the second example can be excluded from the body of Christ solely on the basis of how they were baptized. What is important is not the exact words that are said. Rather, it is that it is clear that the person is making a public declaration of their faith in Jesus Christ through water baptism. It is important to understand that:

	~~#water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis~~ of ~~condemnation is unbelief only.~~		We were at a baptismal service in a message church where a person was baptized by one of the deacons in the name of the Jesus Christ. After the baptism was over, the pastor stood up and required the deacon to immediately rebaptized the person in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
	~~#Both~~ the ~~Acts 2:38 forumula and the Matthew 28:19 formula are acceptable because they are both based in scripture.~~
	~~#While baptism~~ in the name of Jesus Christ ~~(or a similar variant) may be~~ the ~~preferred method of~~ baptism ~~for some~~, ~~those espousing~~ the ~~Acts 2:38 formula cannnot exclude those baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19. If someone comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith,~~ and ~~is then baptized in~~ the ~~Matthew 28:19 formula as shown in example #2 above, there is no basis~~ to ~~excluded from~~ the ~~church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on~~ the ~~outward appearance, but~~ the ~~LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7~~.~~</ref>~~

	~~We deal with this in more detail below~~.		Such actions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of water baptism. There are no "magic words" that are required to be pronounced over the person being baptized. Baptism is "''the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone to heaven and is at the right-hand side of God, ruling over all angels and heavenly authorities and powers.''<ref>American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1992), 1 Pe 3:21–22.</ref>

	==Derivation from a Oneness Christology==		==Derivation from a Oneness Christology==

Admin: /* The Historical Record of the Church */

2021-11-06T18:26:20Z

The Historical Record of the Church

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 6 November 2021
Line 210:		Line 210:
	"The Lord himself told his disciples that '''they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit''' . . . for indeed, '''legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity'''" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 - A.D. 248).		"The Lord himself told his disciples that '''they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit''' . . . for indeed, '''legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity'''" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 - A.D. 248).

			=Some baptismal formulas that would not be acceptable=

			It is clear that someone baptized in the name of William Branham (yes, it happens) would not have undergone Christian baptism.

			I would also have significant reservations if someone were baptized as follows:

			:''Given that you believe that God sent William Branham, the last prophet to the last age, I now baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

			If is clear that such baptism is not based on faith in Jesus Christ but rather in faith in William Branham as a prophet.


	{{Bottom of Page}}		{{Bottom of Page}}
	[[Category: Unfinished articles]]		[[Category: Unfinished articles]]

Admin: /* Conclusion */

2021-11-06T18:21:25Z

Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 6 November 2021
Line 57:		Line 57:

	#water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.		#water baptism is not the means of salvation. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.
	#While baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (or a similar variant) is the preferred method of baptism, ~~it is also true that~~ someone ~~that~~ comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith and is then baptized in the ~~Trinitarian~~ formula, ~~cannot be~~ excluded from the church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7.</ref>		#Both the Acts 2:38 forumula and the Matthew 28:19 formula are acceptable because they are both based in scripture.
			#While baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (or a similar variant) may be the preferred method of baptism for some, those espousing the Acts 2:38 formula cannnot exclude those baptized in accordance with Matthew 28:19. If someone comes to faith in Christ, publicly declares that faith, and is then baptized in the Matthew 28:19 formula as shown in example #2 above, there is no basis to excluded from the church on any reasonable grounds. ''"Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.''<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 1 Sa 16:7.</ref>

	We deal with this in more detail below.		We deal with this in more detail below.