Refuting the Oneness Pentecostal Baptismal Formula

[robert skynner]

The words in the baptismal formula do not keep on changing constantly, like numbers in a lottery draw. So your quotations from these theological dictionaries only prove that the prepositions are constantly changing from Acts 2,8, 10 and 19 (en, eis, epi), as well as the precise wordings; Jesus Christ, Lord and Lord Jesus. Such constant changes prove that this is not a baptismal formula it cannot be, when the wording always differs between each occurrence.



These verses must be references to the authority for baptism, which is solely in the person of Jesus Christ himself. This is borne out when we consider that all of these verses Acts 2:38 etc are all DRY VERSES, with not a drop of water amongst them whatsoever. To me this settles it, these cannot be baptismal formulas, when not only do the wordings differ, but the prepositions also differ, and water is completely absent. How one earth can you baptise without water, I guess that as with our Lord, in Oneness theology “all things are possible.”



Consider Acts 2:38 as a case in point. This cannot be a baptismal formula, because nobody was baptised here, but rather three verse later in verse 41, where God considered the baptismal formula of such little importance that he did not even record it. Go through these verses, and you will find that they are only commanding baptism upon (or "in" or "on") the authority of the Lord (or "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ"). The baptisms always follow after these verses, as does the water. So you cannot twist these verse into a baptismal formula, they must refer to the basis for baptism which is on / in / upon the authority of the Lord / Lord Jesus / Jesus Christ.



What on earth could be clearer? One would have to be a blind as a bat to miss this. Or of course a Oneness preacher, who not knowing the idiomatic structure of Greek, takes a simple statement in the Greek and completely misunderstanding it, by reading it as a twenty first century American would, then builds an entire new revelation upon a common layman’s misunderstanding.

 

[Ken Rank]

The words in the baptismal formula do not keep on changing constantly, like numbers in a lottery draw. So your quotations from these theological dictionaries only prove that the prepositions are constantly changing from Acts 2,8, 10 and 19 (en, eis, epi), as well as the precise wordings; Jesus Christ, Lord and Lord Jesus. Such constant changes prove that this is not a baptismal formula it cannot be, when the wording always differs between each occurrence.



These verses must be references to the authority for baptism, which is solely in the person of Jesus Christ himself. This is borne out when we consider that all of these verses Acts 2:38 etc are all DRY VERSES, with not a drop of water amongst them whatsoever. To me this settles it, these cannot be baptismal formulas, when not only do the wordings differ, but the prepositions also differ, and water is completely absent. How one earth can you baptise without water, I guess that as with our Lord, in Oneness theology “all things are possible.”



Consider Acts 2:38 as a case in point. This cannot be a baptismal formula, because nobody was baptised here, but rather three verse later in verse 41, where God considered the baptismal formula of such little importance that he did not even record it. Go through these verses, and you will find that they are only commanding baptism upon (or "in" or "on") the authority of the Lord (or "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ"). The baptisms always follow after these verses, as does the water. So you cannot twist these verse into a baptismal formula, they must refer to the basis for baptism which is on / in / upon the authority of the Lord / Lord Jesus / Jesus Christ.



What on earth could be clearer? One would have to be a blind as a bat to miss this. Or of course a Oneness preacher, who not knowing the idiomatic structure of Greek, takes a simple statement in the Greek and completely misunderstanding it, by reading it as a twenty first century American would, then builds an entire new revelation upon a common layman’s misunderstanding.

I think you are all wrong, so there!

Look, in Hebrew, the word for name is shem and it is dealing with the name bearer's character, reputation, authority and in the case of God... His power and presence as well. To walk in His name has nothing to do with whether you say His name or not. If you are walking according to His will and authority and/or in a manner consistent with His character.... you are walking in His name. On the flip side, if you claim to be His but harlot around, live the life of a drunk, involve yourself in all manner of sin... you are profaning His name.... profaning His character and existing outside of His authority. To proclaim His name isn't necessarily repeating whatever pronunciation of Yod Hay Vav Hay you happen to prefer or that is popular this week... it is proclaiming His greatness, His attributes... to the world around you (see Exodus 34:5-8). I can go on... to pray in His name is to pray according to His will. If you run off a list of WANTS and expect God to act like your personal genie and grant your wish, you can end the pray by saying "in Jesus name" 100 times and won't be praying in His name because you would be praying outside of His authority and in opposition to His character.

So, what about baptism? We are not being immersed into letters or a word. Those letters do not have power, they POINT to the one who has "all power in heaven and earth." "Jesus" (not that I care at all who uses it, I do at times) was a name he didn't ever hear with his own ears. So being baptized into His name is not speaking a few words over a person as they are immersed, we don't literally immerse into a word or letters... being "baptized in his name" means being immersed into His authority over death. We are dying to ourselves, we are then immersed with Him in baptism, into His authority over sin and death, and raised the walk in the newness of life. One can immerse without saying a word, and still be baptized in His name. Or you can say it... it doesn't matter.... I SAID IT when I baptized my own children but... it isn't what we say, it is what we are immersed into that qualifies as being baptized into His name.

So... Father, Son and Spirit..... or Yeshua/Jesus? The answer is yes... the Son came in the authority (name) of the Father, when he resurrected He said that all power (name) and authority (name) had been given unto Him. So, Yeshua had the power/authority of the Godhead.... say Father Son and Spirit, say Yeshua/Jesus, or say nothing... as long as you are immersed into His authority over the grave, you are being immersed into His name. Shalom.

 

[robert skynner]

I think you are all wrong, so there!

Look, in Hebrew, the word for name is shem and it is dealing with the name bearer's character, reputation, authority and in the case of God... His power and presence as well. To walk in His name has nothing to do with whether you say His name or not. If you are walking according to His will and authority and/or in a manner consistent with His character.... you are walking in His name. On the flip side, if you claim to be His but harlot around, live the life of a drunk, involve yourself in all manner of sin... you are profaning His name.... profaning His character and existing outside of His authority. To proclaim His name isn't necessarily repeating whatever pronunciation of Yod Hay Vav Hay you happen to prefer or that is popular this week... it is proclaiming His greatness, His attributes... to the world around you (see Exodus 34:5-8). I can go on... to pray in His name is to pray according to His will. If you run off a list of WANTS and expect God to act like your personal genie and grant your wish, you can end the pray by saying "in Jesus name" 100 times and won't be praying in His name because you would be praying outside of His authority and in opposition to His character.

So, what about baptism? We are not being immersed into letters or a word. Those letters do not have power, they POINT to the one who has "all power in heaven and earth." "Jesus" (not that I care at all who uses it, I do at times) was a name he didn't ever hear with his own ears. So being baptized into His name is not speaking a few words over a person as they are immersed, we don't literally immerse into a word or letters... being "baptized in his name" means being immersed into His authority over death. We are dying to ourselves, we are then immersed with Him in baptism, into His authority over sin and death, and raised the walk in the newness of life. One can immerse without saying a word, and still be baptized in His name. Or you can say it... it doesn't matter.... I SAID IT when I baptized my own children but... it isn't what we say, it is what we are immersed into that qualifies as being baptized into His name.

So... Father, Son and Spirit..... or Yeshua/Jesus? The answer is yes... the Son came in the authority (name) of the Father, when he resurrected He said that all power (name) and authority (name) had been given unto Him. So, Yeshua had the power/authority of the Godhead.... say Father Son and Spirit, say Yeshua/Jesus, or say nothing... as long as you are immersed into His authority over the grave, you are being immersed into His name. Shalom.

You are accusing me (a humanist) of things which I do no believe and which I have not said. Why don't you read my post and then respond to my own comments.

 

[Ken Rank]

You are accusing me (a humanist) of things which I do no believe and which I have not said.

First of all, you are getting a little riled-up and there was nothing personal here, no accusing at all. I simply saw a post that included Scripture, it deals with whether or not one might recite three titles or one name in immersion (or potentially "authority" which was your point), and I saw an opportunity to share a little understanding as related to the Hebrew language that clears up any misunderstanding because it reveals that "name" (whether "name of Father, Son, Spirit" or "name of Yeshua") is dealing in this case, with AUTHORITY not a collection of letters.

Second... you have added to the confusion because you list yourself as a "humanist" which is currently defined as "an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters" and yet have as a slogan under your profile picture, "The Bible is truth, but beware of religious people" which is an obvious contradiction to your stated belief system. You are partially to blame, at least, for the discontent my response brought.

Why don't you read my post and then respond to my own comments.

I did, and you rightly pointed out the "authority of the Lord" rather than immersion into a collection of letters, as if that were even possible. All I did in my response, which was not so much to YOU but to readers of this thread in general AND to all Christians who chose titles or one name (I should have been clearer in making sure I separated you from that seeing, again, you rightly used the word authority rather than a formula of words, for that I apologize), was add weight to your point.

 

[robert skynner]

Look, in Hebrew, the word for name is shem and it is dealing with the name bearer's character, reputation, authority and in the case of God... His power and presence as well. To walk in His name has nothing to do with whether you say His name or not.

If you had read my post in full, you would have noted that I make this very point that name (onoma in Greek) means the authority of a person, or his / her character, it is the Oneness Pentecostals who claim that name of Jesus is some baptismal formula which must be repeated ver batum .... I am arguing AGAINST that.

 

[Ken Rank]

If you had read my post in full, you would have noted that I make this very point that name (onoma in Greek) means the authority of a person, or his / her character, it is the Oneness Pentecostals who claim that name of Jesus is some baptismal formula which must be repeated ver batum .... I am arguing AGAINST that.

You can calm down brother... I did read it and really wasn't speaking so much to you but was instead putting what you said in my own words (we teach this at any opportunity we get we asked to speak at various places) because it was such an important point. I can see why what I wrote doesn't reflect what you had said properly and I apologize. You clearly understand the word name.

Blessings.
Ken