Is baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” as opposed to in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the only valid means? Why the contradiction?
Question:
Some Apostolic-Pentecostal Christians claim that being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38) is the correct form of baptism, and disregard baptism in the name of the Trinity (Matt. 28:18-20). They claim that there is a great importance concerning what you are baptized into. My question is this: are these baptisms the same thing or are they different? I believe the Bible is flawless and has no contradictions, but please explain the seemingly blatant contradiction between Acts 2:38 and Matt. 28:18-20. Are they the same or different? which is correct? Who should we be baptized in the name of?
Answer:
There is no contradiction between Matthew 20:18-20 and Acts 2:38. There certainly is no “blatant” contradiction. What these two passages do is they prove that the precise formula used when a person is baptized is not essential to the effect of that baptism! Whether one is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or one is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not material to whether one received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. For me, personally, I prefer to use the fuller formula when I baptize someone because these are the words prescribed by Jesus on Matthew 28:18-20. I have always baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But, I acknowledge that this is not an essential practice, and this is proved by Acts 2:38 when an apostle, appointed by Jesus, used the shorter formula when baptizing at the first public worship service. I am glad that the New Testament provides two different formulas, because it proves that the efficacy of baptism is not based on any sort of formulaic way of pronouncing the baptism. There is good evidence that the early church normally used the Matthew 28:18-20 formula. In fact, by the late first century they were at times doing triple baptisms. Once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son and once in the name of the Holy Spirit. I am not recommending this practice, but it does show that those who claim the Acts 2:38 passage is prescriptive are not correct, as far as the apostles were concerned.
In my experience, of the two formulae, the only one which is ever used by believers as the only correct mode of baptism is the one in Acts 2:38. I have never heard of anyone claiming that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is invalid. Historically, the Acts 2:38 formula has been used as a divisive means to disprove some concepts of the trinitarian God. Oneness Pentecostals have taught modalism–that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are three different appearances of one person. They deny the trinity. Given the two formulae, this is clearly a bogus means of arguing for or against the biblical concept of trinity. People should stop using this argument. Given that the Matthew 28:18-20 “formulae” was stated by Jesus himself, and give that this appears to have been the preferred formula of the early church, clearly those who say that baptism in the name of the three is not effective for salvation are wrong. And, by the way, so is their theology wrong.
John Oakes
