# Baptismal formula in Acts



## polemic_turtle (Oct 13, 2007)

I am in need of some helpful thoughts concerning the "apparent" disregard for Matthew 28:19's "formula" in Acts. The references are to every place in Acts where a person is said to be baptized in a name( cf. 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 ); why would you say that they are baptized in the name of Jesus rather than that of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? Where are some helpful discussions on this to be found?

Are any of these texts or Matthew 28:19 prescribing a verbal formula to be used in the baptismal rite or does the phrase "in the name" refer to simply the authority by which the baptizer baptizes? I'm in need of some clear thinking and speaking in this vein over the next week ( I'm speaking with someone who believes it is very important to be baptized in the name of Jesus alone ).


----------



## polemic_turtle (Oct 13, 2007)

This what I'm running up against: link


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 13, 2007)

Tyler,

If you have a long-term relationship with this man then I would suggest the issues are larger than the debate over a formula. Folks that argue for this (as you probably are aware) are doing so with a Oneness Pentecostal bent. Thus, their larger issue is the fact that they're unbelievers.

I think it would be more beneficial to work on the core issue (unbelief) rather than the formula. My experience is that it is better to work on a person's respect of the Word first and the theologies it develops and the other "strongholds" kind of crumble from underneath. That is to say that if you are working through a Bible Study with people then they start to realize that you handle the Word accurately and you ask them to interact with you on the text as you go through the Bible together.

I've never found prooftexting battles to be useful with folks like this as the core issue is a complete worldview change. It really wouldn't do anything for this person for you to convince him of a formula debate if he is still holding on to a modalistic view of the Trinity.

As to the question, I don't think there is anything "magical" about using the words themselves but the fact that it is Trinitarian baptism is inescapably important whatever the form.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Oct 14, 2007)

I think you're right, brother. I appreciate your reply.


----------



## Quickened (Nov 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Tyler,
> 
> If you have a long-term relationship with this man then I would suggest the issues are larger than the debate over a formula. Folks that argue for this (as you probably are aware) are doing so with a Oneness Pentecostal bent. Thus, their larger issue is the fact that they're unbelievers.



Hi there! I am not really all that familiar with "Oneness Pentecostal". Can you explain for me what you mean with your post. I guess i am assuming that people that only refer to the name of Jesus are oneness pentecostal? I dont mean to derail the thread but was looking for some more insight.

Its neat to see an entire subforum for baptism. It was something that i have researched a bunch leading up to my baptism.


----------



## Davidius (Nov 5, 2007)

joshua said:


> Hi, Brian. Oneness Pentacostals are those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity. That God is three persons and yet one God. This is also why the baptize in Jesus' Name only.



Just to add to what Josh said, they believe that God, at various times, appears as different persons. In other words, at any given time He is either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but not all three at the same time. They believe that the orthodox formulation of trinitarian doctrine is actually tritheism.


----------



## Quickened (Nov 5, 2007)

Ah! Thank you gentlemen. It seems that perhaps that movement is quite common in america.


----------

