It is always amazing to me how that so many can put this issue on a back burner claiming that it has little or no significance. As if the name of Jesus Christ is some minor point of theological rubble, when in reality it is the very cornerstone of all Christian faith and teaching! (Ephesians 1:21; Philippians 2:9)
The truth of the matter is the "name" of Jesus Christ is said in Scripture to be the cause of wars and the motivation for men being brought into courtrooms and before religious tribunals. (Matthew 10:22; 19:29; 24:9; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:12,17; John 15:21; Acts 9:16, Rev. 2:3) Not the idea of Christ, or the message of Christ, or "the authority of Christ," BUT THE NAME! What an irresponsible notion! That the term “in the name of” is to be interpreted so carelessly as “on behalf of” or “in the authority or stead of” Jesus Christ. A demon will not budge until you SPEAK the name of Jesus. You can act in His stead or on His behalf all you want to, but what the demon fears is the NAME of Jesus Christ. For when one speaks that name with authority, in the full revelation of its’ power and glory, demons are forced to yield to your word! Matthew 7:22; Luke 10:17)
In the book of Revelation, John records the Lord as acknowledging each of the churches in Asia as to whether or not they had chosen to deny His name. (Revelation 2:13-17; 3:1-12) Obviously, that wonderful name is VERY important. And is it important in baptism? I should say so. ACTS 4:12 "For there is NO OTHER NAME given among men under heaven whereby WE MUST BE SAVED." Paul said that "As many as have been baptized INTO CHRIST have put on Christ." (Romans 6:3) Why does not one Biblical historical account of baptism reflect any other mode or method than immersion in the name of Jesus Christ? (Acts 2:38; 8:12-16; 10:48; 22:16; I Cor. 1:15) Is this God's big mistake in compiling His Word?
The Roman Catholic Church had the gall to change the baptismal formula officially at the Nicene council in 325 AD. They possessed no such authority as the Apostles alone were given such responsibility to establish doctrine. (II Cor. 11:4; Galatians 1; 6-9I Cor. 3:11; Ephesians 2:20) And then for centuries they murdered millions who would not submit to their man-made doctrines, preferring instead to remain true to the Apostles’ teachings, on this and many other points of dogma and compromise with pagan practice. Read Revelation 17, 18, and 19:1-4... They will one-day answer in the judgment for having turned millions away from the name of Jesus to nonspecific titles, which "Father, Son, & Holy Ghost” happen to be. Do you know ANYONE who is named "Father," "Son," or "Holy Ghost?"
Interestingly enough, there are many worldwide who acknowledge Buddha, Vishnu, Elohiym, Jehovah, etc as "Father." Mormons believe Elohiym is one God and the father of both Jesus and his brother Lucifer. (Yes, that is their actual teaching) So when you use the term “Son” as a Mormon, it may refer to either Christ Jesus or Satan! And when you use the term “Father,” you are speaking of a separate entity and person (an entirely separate god) from the Son. So you see, the terms, titles - "Father," "Son," and "Holy Ghost," are all up to one's interpretation as they may be applied to or in reference of any number of people. "Son" is also applied to the many manifestations of Buddha and so other so-called "god-men." Because we believe Jesus Christ to be "the ONLY begotten Son of the Father" does not mean that speaking the title "Son" immediately implies or refers to Him as there are many, the Lord said, who came before Him and after Him who have claimed to be "the Son of God." (John 10:8; Mathew 24:26)
Interestingly, Jesus (the Son) stated that one may have the Father without the Son, but one could not possibly have the Son without the Father." Jehovah's Witnesses and a myriad of others embrace such beliefs as to separate the father and the Son making two separate god-like beings, while claiming to still embrace the terms (titles), Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If one were to correctly apply and interpret Scripture, one would recognize immediately that Matthew 28:19 calls for men to be baptized in THE NAME (singular, not plural) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The one superlative revealed name that has been given to us which alone can be applied to the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in regeneration is JESUS! Look again at Isaiah 9:6. The same One we call Counselor, Wonderful, is also called THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER... Jesus prayed in the garden and said in prayer that He had revealed and declared His Father's name. (John 17:26; 5:43) The Holy Ghost would be sent "in His name." (John 14:26) Considering the Holy Ghost is nothing more than the invisible Spirit of our resurrected Savior (Romans 8:9; I Cor. 6:17; Ephesians 2:18; 4:4; Phil. 1:19) we then can easily recognize that to baptize in THE NAME (singular, not plural; and NAME, not titles) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost is to recognize the presence, person, and preeminence of Christ in all of these three manifestations of our One God and declaring that One name of Jesus in recognition of both His divine work in creation as the Father/Creator, the human work as Son/Redeemer, and the present Spiritual work as the Holy Ghost/invisible regenerator and giver of new life.
Biblical and extra-Biblical historians and scholars all testify to the clear FACT of history that early Christian baptisms through the second and into the third centuries were ALWAYS administered in the name of Jesus Christ alone! If it was good for Paul and Silas, then it's good enough for me!
Roman Catholic teaching concerning the triune formula being spoken over one in baptism clearly states that one is baptized "into the trinity," or "in the name of the trinity." So the real issue becomes, should we be baptized into a man-made "name," which the word "trinity" without question is, or should we be baptized in the greatest name ever to be spoken from the lips of angels and heard by the ears of men? As the old song says, "I dare not trust a sweeter frame, but wholly lean ON JESUS NAME."
When a man marries a woman, she takes on his name. We take on the name of the Lord at baptism, and are then, and only then, truly able to brand ourselves "Christian." (Acts 11:26)
Jesus Christ said in Mark’s record of the Gospel, “And these signs shall follow them that believe, In my name…” (Mark 16:17-18) If we pray in the name of the Lord, and we cast out demons in the name of the Lord, and lay hands on the sick in the name of the Lord, why in God’s creation would He suddenly desire we change our MO (Method of Operation) by baptizing differently? Paul knew what he was saying when he said, "Whatsoever you do IN WORD or IN DEED (the act and ordinance of baptism being both word and deed), do it ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD." (Colossians 3:17)
If you have yet to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, dear friend, I exhort you this hour to hear this simple undiluted message and obey it's call today. Churches that baptize in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins may be found in your community in the phone book under the heading of Apostolic or Pentecostal. You should call that church first and specifically ask them, "Do you baptize in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" If they stutter or answer, "No," keep looking. Church organizations which embrace this truth and practice baptism according to the apostles message include:
And there are others. Please consult the Internet or your local phone directory.
