Should I be rebaptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit (from Jesus' name only)

Holy Universe · Oct 6, 2023

I was baptized in the name of Jesus only, by someone who is a pentocoast believer, which I don't ascribe to.

I came across this verse in Acts For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

Now I'm wondering if I made a mistake to not get baptized in using the trinitarian formula.

I don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation - one is saved beforehand and out of obedience, does one get baptized, however, I wonder if I am missing on a deeper level of spiritual baptism by not using the trinitarian formula.

Both formulas are used in acts. I'm just now noticing, when using Jesus name only, it was often or entirely for Jews.

I'm not sure, need some advice.

Is it okay to get rebaptised? Is this pedantic?

I've heard some people say not to get rebaptized. I was hoping there is a consensus one way or the other.

Cheers

tturt · Oct 6, 2023

Agree that when we become believers,, we are baptized.. There's "...the doctrine of baptisms,..." (Heb 6:2).

Baptism means immersions and there's 3 main Biblical ones. Each one with outward behaviors resulting from this new, inward, spiritual state.

1 - By The Holy Spirit into Jesus reconcilng us to God (at salvation).
2- By another believer (water baptism) All 3 persons of the Godhead involved in this baptism as well.
3 - By Jesus who sends the promise of the Father baptists us "by," "with" and "in" the Holy Spirit and comes upon us (The Spirit baptism)

More details:
1 - By The Holy Spirit into Jesus which reconciles us to God is the baptism at salvation. It's being baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ by believing in His death, burial, and resurrection. We become new creatures in Christ. We will tell others of our salvation. (Rev 1:5; Matt 26:28; Mark 1:4-9, 16:16; Luk 3:3; 1 Cor 12:13; Acts 2:38; Gal 3:27, II Cor 5:17-18, Rom 10:9).

Water and Spirit baptism follows salvation - not in a set order though
2 - By another believer (water baptism) "... fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness," (Matt 3:6-16, 28:18-20; Acts 8:39, 10:47, 22:16; John 3:5).

3- - By Jesus who sends the promise of the Father baptists us "by," "with" and "in" the Holy Spirit (The Spirit baptism) includes when the Holy Spirit comes upon us, He endures us with power for service to Him, to be His witnesses, and to keep His Word. (Matt 3:11, 5:16; Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16; John 1:33, Acts 1:5, 8:14-17, 10:44-48, 11:16; I Cor 12:13, Luk 24:49, Eph 5:18, Acts 4:31; I John 3:24; Eze 36:25-28; John 14:25-27).

There's not going to be a consensus about being water baptized again.

Think you should pray about it and do as the Holy Spirit leads you.

trophy33 · Oct 6, 2023

Its not the formula that makes baptism valid or not. Its your faith that makes it valid.

You are baptized into the name of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, even if it was not said aloud, as long as you believe.

But it may be better to be re-baptized than to struggle with OCD or anxiety about it. However, I think most churches will tell you its not needed, that you are baptized already.

chevyontheriver · Oct 6, 2023

Generally it is ONE baptism. This would be an exception.

Catholics are perhaps the most strict about baptism, requiring the correct words, correct intention, and natural water. And most strict about not getting baptized again. We accept almost every baptism so that Adventists, Baptists, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, etc find that their baptisms are accepted in the Catholic Church and they are not even allowed to get rebaptized. Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or non-Trinitarian baptisms are the exception. You can and should be rebaptized. Or, baptized validly now for the first time.

You will find no consensus here as there are thousands of theologies of baptism. Some will say baptism is not necessary at all. Some that you do what you feel like or that you can get baptized as many times as you want. Or that the words don't matter at all. But you have discovered from the New Testament that the words do matter and you have discovered from the creeds that there is ONE baptism for the remission of sins.

Maria Billingsley · Oct 6, 2023

Everyone is different. I don't even remember what " formula " was used when I was baptized and I am not the least bit concerned because God knows my heart and that I recieved the baptism with pure love for Him. That being said, if this troubles you and it has an adverse effect on your walk with Him, then by all means make it right so your heart is in the right place.
Blessings.

com7fy8 · Oct 7, 2023

I have been baby baptized Catholic, saved Baptist baptized, baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, baptized in Jesus' name, and Trinity baptized in a missionary baptist church.

What worked, I would say, is how I confessed Jesus before people and sought to obey however He took me and guided me. And this included getting baptized without believing in and depending on how it was done. It was about trusting in Jesus and confessing Him before people.

"'Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.'" (Matthew 10:32)

I would advise that you find people who obviously help you to grow in Jesus and know His word and learn how to share as God's family. And, when you have an issue, pray with these people until you are agreed in prayer, then do what you find that God has you do.

Aaron112 · Oct 7, 2023

Sorry, no.

Paidiske · Oct 7, 2023

In your case I would recommend being baptised using a Trinitarian formula.

If you are unsure, or worried that your baptism is not valid, but also worried that being baptised now might be the wrong thing to do, one possible way to go is to have what is called a conditional baptism. That is, to be baptised with the minister saying something like, "If you have not already been validly baptised, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

That leaves it up to God to do whatever might be spiritually necessary, and pretty much covers all of your bases.

biblelesson · Oct 17, 2023

Your baptism is correct. After Jesus death, we are to be baptized in the name of Jesus, and “we shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:38 KJV.

When Jesus was alive, the people could not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Only after he atoned for our sins could the Holy Spirit be given, John 7:39 KJV. Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), Colossians 2:9 KJV, and has been given all power. We as believers are given the Spirit of Christ, Romans 8:9-11 KJV.

So, you are fine!

biblelesson · Oct 17, 2023

Something to consider:

When Jesus told His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, He was speaking of Himself (in the name of Jesus) being the fullness of the Godhead bodily,

By Jesus saying baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, certain thing had not taken place yet, as he was still on earth.

He was speaking of Himself knowing that He had all Power, Matthew 28:18 KJV, but that He had not ascended back to the Father yet, where He would exercise this Power.

The Holy Spirit would be sent in Jesus name, but not while still on earth. He said it was expedite for him to go so that the Comforter (Holy Ghost) could come, John 16:7 KJV.
Without having ascended, we could not have received the Holy Spirit, because He could only “send” the Holy Spirit from His Father from Heaven, John 14:25-26 KJV.

The fullness of the Godhead boldly means: Jesus is in the Father, and the Father is in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit would be sent in Jesus name. Jesus the fullness of Power. That’s why we are baptized in Jesus name.

This answers the question: why did the disciples not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost as Jesus commanded? The disciples knew Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead and to baptize in the name of Jesus was in fact baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The disciples never baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Only in the name of Jesus - for the remission of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit.

biblelesson · Oct 18, 2023

Hands had not been laid on them yet. Acts 8:16-17 KJV, 16 “(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” 17 “Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

When we are baptized, the preacher or pastor and deacons suppose to lay hands on us to receive the Holy Ghost - the Pentecostals have this process right. If you truly believe in Jesus and were baptized in the name of Jesus, and hands were laid on you, you can be confident you received the Holy Spirit.

If hands were not laid on you, you can ask a preacher to lay hands on you to receive the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostals seem to understand this process well and seem to follow baptism the way the Apostles performed it. This is what you want. Not something you can’t find in scripture.

I’m not Pentecostal, but I would want a Pentecostals preacher to lay hands on me because they have a strong sense of the Holy Spirit in their teachings. In fact it was Pentecostals that prayed over me and laid hands on me when I was baptized.

Just follow scripture and you will be fine.

ViaCrucis · Oct 18, 2023

The issue is complicated. Historically the Church has always baptized using the language which Jesus instructs us to use in Matthew 28:19, in the Triune name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This confuses some people because we see "in Jesus' name" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus" used in the Acts of the Apostles.

Is this a contradiction?

Well, no, I don't think so. If we understand that "in the name of Jesus" (and variations of this) not as a formula, but rather as a way of speaking about Christian baptism (as opposed to what John the Baptist was doing, or to the various ritual washings of Jewish religion) it's consistent. It's a way of demarcating Christian baptism, which was instituted by Jesus, by His authority, and thus done in His name. Whereas the Church sees in Christ's own institution of baptism, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" as the language we use when we baptize.

We can see this from very early on. There's an ancient Christian work known as the Didache, the earliest example of what are called "church manuals", or basic instructions on certain manuals, like basic Christian morality, how to perform baptism, how to celebrate the Lord's Supper, or how to deal with certain issues. The Didache is the earliest example of these sorts of things, and is believed to have been written as early as 60 AD, though it could be as late as 120 AD; though the general consensus is that it was written sometime in the first century.

In the Didache it briefly describes how Christian baptism should be done,

"The procedure for baptizing is as follows. After repeating all that has been said, immerse in running water ‘In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’. If no running water is available, immerse in ordinary water. This should be cold if possible; otherwise warm. If neither is practicable, then pour water three times on the head ‘In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’. Both baptizer and baptized ought to fast before the baptism, as well as any others who can do so; but the candidate himself should be told to keep a fast for a day or two beforehand." - Didache, ch. 7. Translation by Maxwell Staniforth

There's a couple things we can learn from this, for example early Christians weren't legalistic about the mode of baptism. There is a preference for immersion in cool running water (e.g. a river), but any water source is acceptable, including pouring on top of the head. But we can note that while the mode isn't all that important, what is important is that it is in the three-fold name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

From very early on the Christian Church understood that using the name of the Trinity--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--was very important. Not as though the formula were a kind of "magic" but rather because of what is being communicated. Scripture speaks of being baptized "into Christ", but also speaks of being baptized in the Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12:13), and that by our union to Christ in baptism makes us born of God the the Father as sons and daughters (John 3:3-5, Galatians 4:6). So throughout Scripture we see that baptism involves and incorporates the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. So that when we are baptized, when we are joined to Christ (Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:21) we are, in Christ, brought into fellowship with the Father and the Spirit as well--we receive the Spirit (Acts 2:38) we are made children of the Father (Romans 8:15-17).

So it's not a matter of semantics, but rather a matter of intent.

Additionally, in the early centuries of Christianity, there arose several major theological controversies. And in response to these controversies Christians came together to work through issues, often choosing to refine certain words, terms, and language--being more strict in what kind of language we use so as to avoid potentially leading people astray. So while the goal isn't to be overly strict or be legalistic, certain things became more important when it became a matter of preserving truth against error. When, for example, some began teaching strange doctrines, the Church responded by saying "No, we do not believe that" and putting what we believe into action--in how we do things--how we baptize, how we do church services, what hymns we sing, etc.

As a result of this, the generally accepted position is that if a baptism is done using any other formula other than "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" it is not considered a valid baptism.

So with all this said there's basically two questions:

1) What does your current church believe, what do you believe, and do you and your church share agreement that you should receive normative Christian baptism? That can only be answered by sitting down with your pastor and having a long conversation about these things.

2) What is the view of the majority of Christians from across different denominational backgrounds? The answer to this would be that you aren't baptized, since you did not receive a valid Christian baptism. So you wouldn't be "rebaptized", but receiving your first and only baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Oct 18, 2023

This isn't an appropriate place to be teaching anti-Trinitarianism. The Christians-only boards on CF are only for those who subscribe to the Nicene Creed, if one doesn't believe in the Trinity then one should not be posting here.

-CryptoLutheran

biblelesson · Oct 18, 2023

What? You should read my posts. I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You just don’t understand. The Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, so were they against the Trinity or Nicene Creed?

Read the entire post and do some study of the Bible to see what Jesus was doing. The Holy Spirit gives us discernment.

tdidymas · Oct 22, 2023

It's ok to be rebaptized if you want. I was baptized 4 times, and doing a-ok. It's not complicated.

chevyontheriver · Oct 22, 2023

How this discussion differs from the standard rebaptism discussion is that it adds the element of the question of the validity of the first putative baptism. What I have seen so far in this thread is a lot of 1.) if you wanna get rebaptized go ahead, or 2.) if you don't want to get rebaptized don't. Both of those are essentially subjective and don't much address the issue of validity. Then there are those who argue 3.) your baptism is adequate, 4.) your baptism is inadequate. Both are truth claims and somehow both can't quite be true. I think there is considerable subjectivity here as well.

Normative historical Christianity insists on one Trinitarian baptism. Thus those who did not get a Trinitarian baptism SHOULD be rebaptized. Nobody else. Just one valid baptism. That is my opinion as well. Which I share entirely with Via Crucis, particularly in his mentioning of the Didache.

ViaCrucis · Oct 22, 2023

I apologize, it appeared to be an argument in support of "Oneness" teaching; where "Jesus" is treated as the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit rather than that Jesus is uniquely the name of the Divine Person of the Son. As Jesus isn't the Father or the Spirit, He's the Eternal Son, the Divine Logos.

If the argument is that since in Christ is the fullness of the Godhead bodily this is understood that "Godhead" means "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" this is an error in biblical interpretation. The term "Godhead" is an archaic English word that, if updated into more modern English venacular would be "Godhood". The suffix "-head" is identical to "-hood", it's just archaic and thus rarely found. The meaning of "Godhead" ("Godhood") means to have the nature of God, to be Divine. The Greek word St. Paul uses in Colossians 2:9 is θεότης (theotes), it means "Divinity" or "Deity", in the sense of "being Divine" or "being God". The meaning here is that Jesus is entirely and truly Divine, He's God, He has the Divine Being/Essence/Nature.

In the Nicene Creed we confess that the Son is homoousian with the Father, this word translates to "same-Being", and is expanded by the phrase, "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God". In other words, the Son is God even as the Father is God, because the Son is of the same Being, is the same-in-Being with the Father: What the Father is, the Son is. The Father is God, therefore the Son is God; the same God.

Thus because Jesus is the Divine Son, the Eternal and Uncreated Son, eternally-begotten of the Father, as true and very God of the Father's own Being and Essence; then He is truly God, and thus as the Incarnate God is the fullness of Deity/Divinity "in bodily form" as Paul says. Jesus is God (the Son) in the flesh.

Further, while it is true that in the eternal relationship of the Three Divine Persons there is no separation (we can never separate or divide the Son from the Father, or the Father from the Spirit, et al); and therefore the Father is always in the Son as the Son is in the Father (and the Father and Son are in the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Father and the Son, et al). We always make firm the distinctiveness of each Person.

"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Essence" as the Athanasian Creed phrases it.

So "in the name of Jesus" is not the same thing as "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit". The Triune Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit includes Christ, as He is the Son; but it also involves direct and explicit mention of the Father and the Spirit.

I provided, in my earlier post, what I believe to be the accurate understanding of how to read the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles. To elaborate further I'll offer two points of consideration:

1) The Acts of the Apostles does not provide us with instructive language, but rather descriptive. The Acts does not instruct the use of "in the name of Jesus" or variations thereof; but rather describes baptism by Christ's name and authority.

2) "In the name of Jesus" (and variations thereof) is not intended to contradict Christ's instructive words in Matthew 28:19, or lead us to incorrectly think that "Jesus" is the name intended by "the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"; but rather to demonstrate and demarcate the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Christian baptism. The Church does not baptize by her own authority, but by Christ's authority--He told His Church to baptize, so she does so by His command, His authority, His will. This baptism is a uniquely Christian baptism, for it bears the authority of Christ, and it is intended for specific and distinctively Christian meaning and purpose--thus it cannot be conflated with or confused with any other "baptism", such as the baptism of John the Baptist which was "for repentance" (looking forward to the coming of the Messiah), or with the various "baptisms" (i.e. ritual washings) of Jewish religion. Instead this uniquely Christian baptism is the sign and seal from God concerning one's location within the New Covenant of Christ, as one of Christ's own, as a member of the Body, and with all which such things signify--new birth, union with Christ, forgiveness of our sins. Such that this baptism is a vehicle of--a means of--divine grace which grants to us God's promise and work which is in Christ.

Thus "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" preserves not only the explicit instruction of Christ to us; it also ensures that we do not accidentally convey error.

Even though you are not, by your own confession, denying the Trinity; it is nevertheless both theologically unwise and biblically incorrect at best.

-CryptoLutheran

mourningdove~ · Oct 22, 2023

Before Jesus ascended to heaven, He said this:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
(Matthew 28:18-20)

You are a Baptist; I'm guessing then that you may be in a Baptist Church. And Baptist churches are usually very comfortable baptizing adults.
I would think they would be very willing to baptize you (again), if you have any concerns about your first baptism.
... And this time, it would be done in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

As you are a Protestant believer, I see nothing wrong or errant about getting baptized a second time.
I myself was baptized a second time, as an adult, when I committed by life to Christ as an adult.
And the experience was very meaningful to me.

As someone else here has mentioned, I would pray about your concerns ...
and then do as you feel God is leading you.

God bless

Lost Witness · Oct 25, 2023

"In the name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit."

You can be re baptized.

biblelesson · Oct 25, 2023

People are misunderstanding what it means that Jesus is the “fullness of the Godhead boldly” and why we are to baptize in the name of Jesus. The opposition to this is the same opposition Jesus received from the Jews who were going to stone Him and accused Him of blasphemy, for saying I and my Father are One, John 10:30-33 KJV.

Philip was also confused about this and Jesus told him, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” John 14:9 KJV.

This is why we are baptized in Jesus name:

Colossians 2:9-12 KJV
9 “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
10 “And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:”
11 “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:”
12 “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

Christ came here to save us. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, 2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV. In that process God crucified us (our old man) on the cross with Jesus, Romans 6:6 KJV, Romans 6:4 KJV, and when Christ rose we rose with Him. Our baptism represents His crucifixion to save us from our sins, and our resurrection in Him. Presently in our lives, in our bodies, we must live the life of Christ, Galatians 2:20 KJV. Our bodies are quickened by the Spirit, Romans 8:11 KJV, and having the Spirit makes us children of God, Romans 8:15-16 KJV. Therefore just like Jesus is the first fruits unto God, 1 Corinthians 15:20 KJV, the church is the first fruits unto God and Jesus. We are planted into Christ Romans 6:5 KJV; and just as Jesus was resurrected from a fleshly body that was in the likeness of sinful man, those who Christ lives in and those who has the Spirit of God that cries Abba Father, will resurrect in bodies like Christ. Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb Who brings God’s children home.

It is God who raised Jesus from the dead, and sat Him at His right hand, Ephesians 1:20 KJV, who is mediator between God and man, 1 Timothy 2:5 KJV.

It is God who gave Jesus to be the head over “all things” “to the church,” and put “all things” under Jesus feet, Ephesians 1:22 KJV.

It is God Who gave Jesus all power in heaven and earth, Matthew 28:18 KJV. Presently Jesus reign as King over all, Revelation 19:16 KJV

Philippians 2:9-11 KJV
9 “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:”
10 “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;”
11 “And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

God has given Jesus all power whereas He is the fullness of the Godhead bodily. That is in Jesus is the authority of the Father, and the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is God who sends the Holy Spirit “in Jesus name.”

When Jesus has put all enemies under His feet, then Jesus will deliver up the Kingdom to God, and will be subject to God that God may be all in all, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 KJV. In the mean time, God Has given Jesus all rule and authority. This is why we baptize in the name of Jesus.

God giving authority to Jesus does not take away from God being the Father, and does not take away from the Holy Spirit. God set salvation up this way so that we would be made righteous through the sacrificial Lamb without blemish, 1 Peter 1:19 KJV. It is through Jesus that we even believe in God, 1 Peter 1:20-21 KJV,
20 “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,” 21 “Who by him do [we] believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.”

Should I be rebaptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit (from Jesus' name only)

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

"Pray, and prepare ..."

Ezekiel 3:3 ("Change")

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Similar threads