A Hidden Reference to the Trinitarian Formula

I recently met a nice fella at the park who was from a Oneness Pentacostal congregation.  After some smalltalk he began telling me I had been baptized improperly.

I had been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - also known as the Trinitarian formula.  He insisted I needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ only.

Today I want to explore why he was saying this.  Then we will look at the witness of the Early Church on the matter, and finally look at a little-known piece of Scriptural evidence for the Trinitarian words of baptism.


That's Modalism, Patrick!

Again, the person was a member of a “Oneness Pentecostal” congregation.  These are folks who reject the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by the Council of Nicaea.  The Council stated that God one being, one divine essence, which has three co-eternal divine persons who are all completely and fully God.

Make sense?  Well... it shouldn't.  The Trinity is not contrary to reason, but it goes beyond human reason.  It is impossible to really understand what the Trinity is with a human intellect - and every attempt to render it comprehensible leads to some heretical oversimplification.

Which brings us to my friend at the park.

He and his congregation hold to a heresy called “Sebelianism” or “modalism”.  This theology professes that God is one being and one person who has three different modes of action.

What does that mean?

Well, think of how a man can be a father, a pianist, and banker.  That's roughly how they envision the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  And - (this is key) - they hold that this single entity (father-son-spirit) became incarnate and was named Jesus.  That name, Jesus, is thought to be the name of all three.

What's in a Name?

This ideology leads them to interpret the various passages describing baptism entirely differently from the way Trinitarians do.   For instance, at the end of Matthew's Gospel, Jesus gives us the following instruction about baptism:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." - Matthew 28:19

Trinitarians find this instruction very straightforward.  We recognizing that to act "in the name" of someone means to act on their behalf and by their authority.  So we invoke the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit when we baptize.

Modalists interpret this by taking the word "name" very literally.  They ask, "Well, what is the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit?"  And the answer is; They think "Jesus" is the name of all three.  So they conclude we're supposed to baptize while only invoking the name of Jesus.

As proof they point to the various locations in the book of Acts where people are seen being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ”. For instance:

"Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.'" - Acts 2:38

“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." - Acts 10:47-48

So whose interpretation is correct?


Early Witnesses:

One bit of evidence is the writings of the early Christians.  Let's look at the two earliest writings on the subject.

The first one comes from an early Christian instruction manual called the Didache.  This document dates all the way back to the time of the Apostles.  It says the following regarding baptizing people:

"Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water." - Didache 7, 55AD

The second witness comes from a 2nd century Christian writer, teacher, and philosopher called Justin Martyr.  He wrote the following in his First Apology:

"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" - First Apology, Section 61, 155AD

Now the problem with appealing to the early church writings is that the person will likely respond:

"Those writings aren't inspired.  Am I supposed to take the writings of men over the inspired word of God?"

Of course, you're not trying to pit those writings against the Bible.  Rather, you're trying to use the witness of the early church as a guide for how to properly interpret the Bible.

Unfortunately, making that distinction clear - while important - is very difficult.  So let's return to the Bible.



Why Do You Ask, Paul? 

Again, this isn't as simple as quoting Matthew 28 to the fella.  He's heard it many times and knows how to explain it according to his ideology.  You need something he has not seen before.

Let's look at Acts 19:1-3:

"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' 

They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.' 

So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?'” - Acts 19:1-3

Why did Paul think to ask that?  Why did he jump from the fact that they had not heard of the Holy Spirit to thinking there was something wrong with their Baptism?

Paul asked this because he knew they would have heard the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”  prayed over them if they had had received genuine Christian baptism.

This also makes it clear that the phrase “baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” was just a shorthand reference to the Trinitarian baptism which Paul and the Apostles would have performed.

Thanks for joining me.