Question about baptizing only in the name of Jesus

I was raised in a oneness Pentecostal church and was taught that baptism in Jesus name was the only legitimate form of baptism according to Acts 2:38. Some believed it was necessary for salvation while some believed it was necessary to be included in the bride of Christ which is a step above being just children of God. I have come to believe that baptismal regeneration is not salvific. I appreciate you bringing out the Greek language in Acts 2:38. This just adds better argument for baptism as obedience, and not justification. 

But I would like to know scriptural arguments on why we baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How do we say use the formula in Matthew 28:18-20 while Acts 2:38 uses just Jesus name?

That is a really good question. If you will check netbible.org, Thomas Constable gives a good explanation, which I quote here:

Was Peter violating the Lord Jesus’ instructions when the apostle told his hearers to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ alone? Jesus had commanded His disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). I do not think so. When Jesus gave the Great Commission, He had in view the discipling of the nations: everyone. When evangelizing non-Christians, it was necessary to have them identify with the triune God of Christianity through water baptism. Peter’s audience on the day of Pentecost, however, was Jewish. They needed to identify with the true God too, but identification with Jesus Christ is what Peter stressed since baptism in the name of Jesus would have been a particular problem for Jews. It meant acknowledging Jesus as their God. Jews already accepted the fatherhood of God and the idea that God is a Spirit.

What is proxy baptism (1 Cor. 15:29)?

Bible Knowledge Commentary states that there are approximately 200 explanations for 1 Cor. 15:29 (page 544). The Mormons’ practice of vicarious or proxy baptism is a perversion of this verse as explained by C. Penrose in Mormon Doctrine: “Millions of earth’s sons and daughters have passed out of the body without obeying the law of baptism. Many of them will gladly accept the word and law of the Lord when it is proclaimed to them in the spirit world. But they cannot there attend to ordinances that belong to the sphere which they have left. Can nothing be done in their case? Must they forever be shut out of the kingdom of heaven? Both justice and mercy join in answering ‘yes’ to the first ‘no’ to the last question. What, then, is the way of their deliverance? The living man may be baptized for the dead. Other essential ordinances may be attended to vicariously. This glorious truth hid from human knowledge for centuries, has been made known in this greatest of all divine dispensations….It gives men and women the power to become ‘Saviours on Mount Zion,’ Jesus being the great Captain in the army of redeemers” (page 48).

Some believe Paul is referring to an early version of this false teaching in 1 Cor. 15:29. “Paul does not endorse or support the practice. Indeed his language indicates that he dissociates himself and orthodox believers from it. He asks, ‘What shall they do which are baptized for the dead?’ Not ‘what shall we do.’ Yet he does use “we” in the next verse: ‘And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?’ If he is referring to vicarious baptism at all, Paul appears to draw a clear line of demarcation between they and we” (Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, page 55.

 Another plausible explanation is Paul’s motivation from the truth of the resurrection that we should seek to win people to Christ who will be baptized and serve in the local church in the place of those believers who have died. The “they” Paul is referring to are the ones who will be baptized and take the place of the deceased workers in the church.

We know proxy baptism is unbiblical because salvation is by grace through faith, not of works according to Eph. 2:8-9. Baptismal regeneration is unbiblical for the living and therefore cannot be salvific for the dead either. No one can be saved after death according to Biblical texts like Luke 16:19-31 and Heb. 9:27.

What is alien baptism?

Alien baptism means an unbiblical or defective baptism such as infant baptism, or someone baptized in a baptismal regeneration church, or a false profession baptism. We would not hold to alien baptism as practiced by Landmark Baptists who refuse to accept any baptism except those performed under the auspices of a Landmark Baptist church.          

When Christ gave the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 he commanded the church to make disciples by winning sinners to Christ and then baptizing them. So if a person makes a false profession and is baptized by immersion in a Scriptural local church by definition that baptism would not be a Biblical baptism and therefore an alien (or at least an unscriptural) baptism. That false professor would need to be saved and baptized as a believer.

A Biblical example sometimes cited by those who espouse this position is the rebaptism of John’s disciples in Acts 19:1-7. Paul asked the twelve, “Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, ‘Unto John’s baptism.’ Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

We as local Baptist congregations should not allow persons to join our churches who have not first of all trusted Jesus Christ as their Savior and been Scripturally baptized by immersion. If they had been saved and baptized by sprinkling or pouring or in a church, such as the Church of Christ that believes in baptismal regeneration, then that person should be baptized by immersion understanding the significance of baptism as a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Trine baptism and what denomination advocates it

The Church of the Brethren actually has six ordinances which include the love feast, the anointing with oil, the laying on of hands, the assembling together for worship, the holy kiss, and trine baptism.

There are several reasons the Church of the Brethren believes in trine baptism which means to baptize the person face forward three times. One reason for the face forward aspect of baptism is that baptism pictures our crucifixion with Christ and John 19:30 says that when Jesus died on the cross “he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.” Therefore baptism face forward is a literal application of the Scripture. The identification with the death of Christ pictured in water baptism by immersion is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:1-4) not all of the details of the death of Christ. Because Christ was nailed to a cross, does this mean that this detail must be duplicated in baptism?

The three times forward aspect of water baptism is based on the Trinity in the Great Commission in Matt. 28:19-20. Each baptismal candidate is baptized forward as each name of the Trinity is mentioned. In the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19-20, Jesus said to baptize “in the name” (singular) of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Baptizing once in the singular name of the Trinity emphasizes the deity or essence of the Trinity. There is no evidence from any baptismal passage that the converts were immersed three times face forward. Also in Acts 19:5, the believers were baptized in the short formula of Jesus’ name only and therefore were not baptized three times.

The Didache also called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and written around the turn of the 1st century is referenced as evidence for trine baptism. The part quoted reads: “But concerning baptism, thus baptize, ye having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water.” “The Didache states that if immersion is not possible then water was to be poured three times on the head (chap. 7). Notice that this early work does not say to immerse three times, only pour three times” (Ryrie, page 491).

Ryrie also states that “Proponents of trine immersion point out that some lexicons say that baptizo means to dip repeatedly but some do not). The evidence for this view is not strong” (page 492).

Refutation of baptismal regeneration utilizing Mk. 16:15; Acts 2:38; 22:16

One movement that holds to baptismal regeneration is the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma clearly represents the RCC: “Baptism is that Sacrament in which man being washed with water in the name of the Three Divine Persons is spiritually reborn …. Faith, as it is not the effective cause of justification … need not be present. The faith which infants lack is ... replaced by the faith of the Church. The formula ‘ex opere operato’ asserts, negatively that the sacramental grace is not conferred by reason of the subjective activity of the recipient, and positively, that the sacramental grace is caused by the validly operated sacramental sign.” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 971-972). The Latin phrase “ex opera operato” means “by work performed” which means grace is conferred by the sacrament of baptism.

Mark 16:16 cannot be used to teach baptismal regeneration: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The second part of the verse negates baptismal regeneration being taught in the first part because of the omission of baptism as a basis for condemnation. “The verse is simply talking about general cases without making a pedantic qualification for the unusual case of someone who believers and is not baptized” (Grudem, 981).

Neither can Acts 2:38 be used to teach water baptism saves. The eis is not purposive or causative as baptismal regenerationalists would teach. “It is equally true that it may say that baptism is not for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins but because of forgiveness (that had already taken place at repentance).  Eis is clearly used with this meaning in Matthew 12:41---‘they repented at (on the basis of, or because of) the preaching of Jonah.’ It certainly cannot mean in that verse that they repented with a view to the preaching of Jonah” (Ryrie, 337).

Refutation of infant baptism

There are two contrasting views on whom should be baptized. Credobaptists contend that only believers should be baptized and paedobaptists advocate for infants to be baptized.

There are some groups of paedobaptists that believe infant baptism is necessary for salvation. Roman Catholic Church believes that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation and therefore unbaptized infants go to Limbus Infantium. Augustine believed in the eternal damnation of unbaptized infants (Bowman, Infant Salvation, 1).

Augustine wrote: It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation (Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, chapter 21, AD 412).

Covenant theologians also believe that infants must be baptized because Old Testament infants were circumcised. Their argument says that since circumcision and baptism are closely linked in Colossians 2:11-12 infants must be baptized.

Argument from Colossians 2:11-12

Douglas O’Donnell, senior lecturer in biblical studies and practical theology at Queensland Theological College in Brisbane, offers this argument for infant baptism:

There were two signs of the covenant in the Old Testament—circumcision and the Passover. It is fairly clear that the Lord’s Supper replaces the Passover. That baptism replaces circumcision seems logical (a point from Colossians 2:11–12?), but the exegetical connection is not certain.

Guy M. Richard, president of Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta, is much more certain that Colossians 2:11-12 teaches infant baptism: Colossians 2:11–12 makes the theological connection between circumcision and baptism explicit by applying both spiritual circumcision (of the heart) and spiritual baptism (of the Holy Spirit) to the Christian. If inward circumcision and inward baptism are linked, then surely their outward signs—that is, physical circumcision and water baptism—are as well (“Paedobaptism” in Tabletalk. click to open).

My response is that Paul is clearly not talking about physical circumcision but spiritual circumcision in Colossians 2:11 when he writes about “the circumcision made without hands.” Neither is Paul talking about physical baptism but spiritual baptism in Colossians 2:12. Paul does not make the connection between physical circumcision and infant baptism. That connection has to be read into the text.

Our spiritual circumcision (v. 11) took place when God regenerated us (cf. Gal. 5:24). It involved Christ cutting off the domination of our sinful nature (flesh), which slavery characterizes the unregenerate person (cf. Rom. 7:24-25). “Baptism” (v. 12) is Spirit baptism (Thomas Constable at netbible.org).

Argument from Covenant Theology

O’Donnell continues: Some of the important texts on infant baptism are not “baptism” texts, notably Abraham and his new covenant faith (Romans 4) and Paul’s view of the children of believers (1 Cor. 7:12–14; Eph. 6:1). Are we still under the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of grace? If so, how should we treat our children? Perhaps like Abraham treated Isaac—as an heir of the covenant (Hughes, R. Kent. The Pastor's Book, Crossway. Kindle Edition, 402).

Paedobaptists equate the Abrahamic Covenant with the New Covenant in defending infant baptism.

“The argument rests on the covenant theology concept of a single covenant of grace which involved an initiatory rite into that covenant, the rite being circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. These rites indicate membership in the covenant, not necessarily personal faith” (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 423).

Guy M. Richard who is a paedobaptist makes this argument: “Galatians 3:16 and Romans 4:11–12, furthermore, teach us that the Abrahamic covenant is essentially the same as the new covenant”(Guy M. Richard “Paedobaptism” at Tabletalk (click to open).

In the Old Testament, the Abrahamic Covenant found originally in Genesis 12 and the New Covenant given to Israel in Jeremiah 30:34 are two separate covenants. The two covenants are never connected in the New Testament. In Romans 4:11-12, Paul is teaching the doctrine of imputation which is by faith in 4:3 and not works which includes circumcision. Paul is downplaying the importance of circumcision not making a connection to baptism of infants.

“Baptism is the initiatory rite into a believing community, the church; therefore it should only be done to believers. By contrast, circumcision initiated people (including infants) into a theocracy which did have unbelievers in it” (Ryrie, 423). “There is no Biblical parallel, for circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:9-4); whereas, baptism in the New Testament identifies with the local church. If the two were parallel then covenant theologians cannot explain why infant girls are baptized” (Hoyle Bowman, Advanced Ecclesiology, 38).

Argument from Titus 3:3-7

O’Donnell continued to argue for infant baptism: Titus 3:3–7 is important for at least two reasons: (1) it shows the link between regeneration and Spirit baptism using the water metaphor, and (2) the water metaphor is pouring (Hughes, R. Kent. The Pastor's Book (p. 402). Crossway. Kindle Edition).

Salvation is the subject of Paul in Titus 3:3-7, not baptism, and pouring is never used in reference to water baptism. The word “baptize” means to immerse. Lexicons define the Greek word baptizo to mean to dip, immerse, or submerge. “The intens. βαπτίζω occurs in the sense of ‘to immerse’ (trans.) from the time of Hippocrates, in Plato and esp. in later writers, ‘to sink the ship’” (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). To immerse is how the word is used in Scripture (Lk.16:24). There is a word for sprinkling in Scripture: ῥαντισμός rantismos (1 Pet.1:2). There is also a word for pouring in Scripture: ἐκχέω ekcheo (Acts 2:17). But neither of these words is used for baptism.

Argument from “household salvation”

Guy M. Richard writes: Ever since Genesis 17, God’s people had been practicing “household” circumcision, applying the outward sign of God’s inward covenant to professing adult believers (who never received it before) and to their children. Indeed, we would expect to find some mention in the New Testament if, after thousands of years of including children in the covenant community as recipients of the covenant sign, things were supposed to be so radically different in the new covenant era. Are we really to believe that children are now cut out of the covenant community and that the old covenant is, for that reason, greater and more inclusive than the new? What is the basis for this? It runs counter to the principle of expansion that we see at work everywhere else when we move from Old to New Testament. Not only is paedobaptism consistent with the continuity that we see between the covenants and between the covenant signs, but it is also consistent with this principle of expansion because it applies the covenant sign to both men and women and to their male and female children.

Notice that it is the principle of expansion that qualifies infant baptism as part of household salvation instead of New Testament references such as Acts 16:31-34 which states that only those who believed were baptized which excludes infants.

Paedobaptist Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology makes this admission: “Although the NT contains no direct evidence for the practice of infant baptism in the church this is due more to the fact that the apostolic age was primarily a missionary period which focused on the baptism of adults” (Systematic Theology, 632-634). It seems to reach children in its missionary outreach would have been very important for the church to not just baptize adults but infants if it were biblical. The apostolic church did not practice infant baptism because it was not an effective method for outreach but because the Scriptures taught only believer’s baptism.

The Biblical order is that baptism follows faith in Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19 and Acts 2:37-38) and infants cannot believe. In order for the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 to be fulfilled, the baptized must be taught to observe what Jesus taught which is impossible for infants.

How to distinguish John the Baptist’s baptism, Christ’s baptism and the Church’s baptism

“Theologically, baptism may be defined as an act of association or identification with someone, some group, some message, or some event. John the Baptist’s baptism associated His followers with His message of righteousness (he had no group for them to join)” (Ryrie, page 488). John the Baptist’s baptism was a kingdom baptism that identified his baptized converts with the kingdom he was offering (Matthew 3:1-6).

            Christ’s baptism also was a kingdom baptism for He was fulfilling all Messianic righteousness by identifying with Israel. Church baptism also means identification.  Church Baptism is the first of two ordinances and is the initiatory ordinance. “Christian baptism means identification with the message of the Gospel, the person of the Savior, and the group of believers” (Ryrie, page 489).