Some people have become confused over the difference between baptism in the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) and baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). Some teach triune (sometimes called trine) immersion—being baptized once for the Father, once for the Son, and once for the Holy Spirit. Others see distinctions between the two that are not there. Mac Deaver, for example, as his theology continues to evolve, has now arrived at the position that baptism in the name of Christ is one thing, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is something else. In the Spring 2011 Special Issue of Biblical Notes Quarterly, he writes that those in Samaria needed “to get out of their sins”; so they were baptized in the name of Jesus, but then he adds:
However, to become a Christian one had to be baptized not only into the name of the Lord but into the name of the Father and into the name of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19, 20) (6).
Yes, the appropriate response is to say, “What?” If the reader has never heard of such a thing, there is a good reason; such a thought is preposterous, stated by someone desperate to defend a false doctrine.
Becoming a Christian
The Holy Spirit aside (for a moment), what does the Bible teach about becoming a Christian? A consideration of Acts would be helpful. Peter told the Jewish multitude (who asked what they should do) to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (unto) the remission (forgiveness) of their sins (Acts 2:37-38). Why does immersion in water remove sins? It is actually not the water (although God chose that element) that removes sins; it is the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5). Sins are removed by the blood of Jesus when a person is baptized. Saul of Tarsus was told, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins…” (Acts 22:16).
Thus, sins (not the filth of the flesh—1 Peter 3:21) are removed in baptism. At the same time a person is washed, he is also justified and sanctified (1 Cor. 6:9-11). What a thrilling triad of truths. When someone obeys the gospel, he is washed or cleansed from his sins. They are removed, and he is forgiven of all his sins through the blood of Jesus. At the same time one is sanctified or made holy. Because of the blood of Christ, the sinner becomes a saint when all of those sins are removed. Third, the same individual is justified before God. With his sins removed he no longer stands condemned. The Lord will not pronounce him, “Guilty!” any longer. If he died the next moment, he would be received into Heaven.
But alas! he is not yet a Christian, according to Mac Deaver in the paragraph previously cited. Who would have thought that one could enter into Heaven (under the new covenant) without being a Christian? This obvious contradiction shows that Mac’s theology is false. Acts 2:41 also demonstrated that those 3,000 baptized in the name of Jesus were added to them. To whom? They were added to the number of those who believed. Later, the text says: “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). Is it possible to be a member of the church without being a Christian? Nothing is said between Acts 2:38 and 2:47 about being baptized in the name of the Father and the name of the Holy Spirit. (Yes, to the church [NKJ] is not in some manuscripts, but brethren have nearly universally considered the phrase a valid one.)
According to Mac, a person must be baptized in the Holy Spirit in order to be a Christian. He can be saved from all his sins, be made holy, and be totally justified, yet he is not a Christian. Those baptized on Pentecost had forgiveness of sins and were added to the church but were not Christians. Also, those in Samaria, had any of them died before Peter and John arrived, would have entered into Heaven without being Christians.
Prepositions
Who can believe this doctrine? What prepositions are used in the Greek language in connection with baptism? Below is a chart that provides the appropriate information.
Matthew 28:19 eis
Acts 2:38 epi (en)
Acts 8:16 eis
Acts 10:48 en
Acts 19:5 eis
1 Cor. 1:13,15 eis
1 Cor. 6:11 en
The reason there are two prepositions listed for Acts 2:38 is that a few manuscripts have en instead of epi. In 1 Corinthians 1:13, 15 baptism is not in the name of Christ but Paul; the apostle substituted his name for that of Jesus to make the point that people are not to be baptized in the name of anyone but the name of Jesus. In the name of has the same purpose in either case. We see eis used four times of both Jesus and of all three personalities of the Godhead, epi used once, and en used twice. Generally speaking, en means “in,” and eis means “into” or “unto.” Epi is rendered as: “in, on, upon, into, for, about, by,” et al.
Several times the phrase, in the name, is used without the connection of baptism. Below is a chart of those instances.
Acts 3:6 en
Acts 4:10 en
Acts 4:17-18 epi
Acts 4:30 dia
Acts 5:28, 40 epi
Acts 9:27 en
Acts 16:18 en
1 Cor. 1:10 dia
1 Cor. 5:4 en
Eph. 5:20 en
Col. 3:17 en
2 Thess. 3:6 en
These are instances in which something besides baptism is done in the name of the Lord, such as Colossians 3:17: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord….” The additional preposition in this list, dia, is translated “by,” but it has many other definitions as well.
Now we took all this care to show that it would be difficult to establish a different meaning in these verses on the basis of which preposition was used—especially since eis is used of baptism into the name of Christ just as it is of baptism into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So the claim that baptism in the name of Jesus is only for the remission of sins while baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is to receive the Holy Spirit must be based on something else. No apparent distinction readily presents itself.
What Does Into the Name Mean?
One must be careful in the use of any commentary, since many times the interpretations set forth are opinions with varying degrees of evidence backing them up. With denominational scholars one must be really careful, but when those works are only providing information—something not related to some of their false teachings—they can be helpful. One ought to wonder what being baptized “into the name” of Jesus or the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit means. The Pulpit Commentary supplies an answer. The following quotation is from their exposition of Matthew 28:19, the first time in the name of is used in connection with baptism:
The phrase does not mean merely invoking the Name, under the sanction of the great Name, but something more than this. It signifies into the power and influence of the Holy Trinity, into faith in the three Persons of God, and the duties and privileges consequent on that faith, into the family of God and obedience unto its Head.
The “into” shows the end and aim of the consecration of baptism. The “Name” of God is that by which he is known to us—that which connotes his being and his attributes, that by which there exists a conscious connection between God and ourselves….
So being baptized into the Name of God implies being placed in subjection to and communion with God himself, admitted into covenant with him. It is to be observed that the term is “name,” not “names,” thus denoting the unity of the Godhead in the Trinity of Persons (15:2:645).
Many of us would choose some different terms or ways of expressing the above thoughts, but they make it clear that, when one is baptized, he is entering into a special relationship (fellowship) with God. Since the name is singular, Mac errs by trying to distinguish between baptism into Jesus and baptism into the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is into the name of all three.
Being baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the same thing as being baptized into the name of Jesus. Why do the Scriptures, then, state it in both ways? God generally expresses the same truth in a number of ways. Consider how many ways there are to designate the church, the body of Christ. Surely, no one tries to see some special significance when the Bible calls the kingdom of Heaven the church of God (Acts 20:28, 1 Cor. 1:2) versus the church of the living God (1 Timothy 3:15) or the churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16).
Likewise, Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 are not referring to two different types of baptisms. The baptism in both cases is one and the same. Any difference between them is imagined rather than actual. Peter was present when the Lord spoke the words of Matthew 28: 19; would he preach something different in Acts 2:38?
Did the Apostles Impart Holy Spirit Baptism?
Peter preached what His Lord commissioned him to preach. There is no evidence that Acts 2:38 means something different from Matthew 28:19. Last week’s Spiritual Perspectives dealt with the meaning of Acts 8—in particular, that Peter and John imparted a spiritual gift to the Samaritans. But Mac Deaver disagrees, as his quote cited earlier on page 1 states. Mac finds two baptisms—one in the name of Jesus to get forgiveness of sins and one in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to become a Christian. Mac elaborates on his contention:
Beginning on Pentecost the baptism in water preached by the apostles was the baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The baptism into the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit was the baptism of the Holy Spirit Himself (6).
Once again, this allegation is nothing more than conjecture without any foundation, and it has already been answered thoroughly. But it poses another problem. According to Matthew 3:11 Jesus is the One Who was to baptize with the Holy Spirit, yet, according to Mac, it is Peter and John who baptize with the Holy Spirit in Acts 8 and Paul in Acts 19! Notice the texts:
Then they [Peter and John, GWS] laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17).
Now when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:5-6).
This last passage harmonizes with what was previously presented here (see 5-22-11); Paul laid his hands on those he had just baptized, and they received a spiritual gift, just as the Samaritans had when Peter and John laid their hands on them. But Mac insists that they received Holy Spirit baptism. To counter the apostles’ role in Holy Spirit baptism (and he knows he has a problem with Matthew 3:11 and John 1:33), he tried to alleviate his predicament by saying that the apostles only “provided the identification of those to receive the Spirit of God” (6). That desperate explanation was also dealt with previously.
What has led to all of this fast shuffling and false dichotomy regarding the Name is Mac’s theory that all who obey the gospel are baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins and in the Holy Spirit for direct strength and help from the Holy Spirit. Thus he has invented two parts of baptism that are necessary to become a Christian—one in water and one in the Holy Spirit. These come at different times in the New Testament. He says of those in Acts 19:
When the twelve disciples were baptized in water, that was their baptism “into the name of the Lord Jesus.” When the Holy Spirit came upon them, that was the completion of the baptismal procedure, for that is when the baptism into the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit occurred (Acts 19:6).
Who knew that baptism was so complicated? Mac should know from his previous debating experience that when a person (such as Dan Billingsly) must resort to redefining common and obvious concepts, the reason is that he is holding to error instead of truth. But Mac does not see that he is doing that very thing with respect to his newly and hastily developed positions.
Conclusion
If the baptism “procedure” involves both baptism in water (as one element) and baptism in the Holy Spirit (as a second element), and these did not occur at the same time, we have an interesting situation, to say the least. Paul completed “the procedure” fairly quickly with those in Ephesus in Acts 19, but those in Samaria were dangling for days. According to Mac, the Samaritans would not have had their baptism “procedure” completed quickly. Philip baptized them in water and their sins were forgiven, but it had to take a little time for “the apostles who were at Jerusalem to hear that Samaria had received the word of God…” (Acts 8:14). Then they sent Peter and John down to them. At least a minimum of two days had to elapse before the “procedure” would be completed.
What about the apostles themselves? They were baptized by John and/or by Jesus in water (see John 1:35-51; 4:1-2) very early on, but they were not baptized in the Holy Spirit until the Day of Pentecost. Talk about a long “procedure”! Three years?
The Bible teaches that the process of the new birth is completed in the action of being baptized in water. Paul writes that non-Christians are baptized into Christ Jesus, into His death (Rom. 6:3). “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). The old man of sin is buried in the watery grave of baptism. What arises? Is it the same person who was buried? Physically, it is, but spiritually it is another person entirely—a new babe. Sins have been washed away. That individual has been washed, sanctified, and justified. Dare we say that, in the process of the old person’s being buried and a new one’s arising from the waters, that he or she had been “born again” (John 3:3, 5)?
One was not half-born when emerging from baptism’s grave, nor did he enter a state of spiritual limbo until the “procedure” was later completed. One is either a newborn child of God, or he is not. Scriptural evidence says that he is. The old man of sin is buried, and a child of God is born (both then and now)—theories of men notwithstanding. This truth is what brethren have always taught. Let no one be swayed to depart from the truth by strange theories requiring new and bizarre definitions.