davidmarkbecker
03-22-2006, 09:46 AM
Baptized "In the Name of Jesus," Should I Be Rebaptized?
The following is from the Q & A section of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, http://www.wels.net. (I have posted this a couple of times on Dave Kenady's discussion board and it caused a big stir both times I did.)
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuItem_itemID=110&cuTopic_topicID=55
Q: Concerning baptism, I was baptized, "in the Name of Jesus", would Lutheran theology accept this baptism or should I be rebaptised in "the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"?
A: The references in the book of Acts to being baptized "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38; 8:16; and 10:48) do not appear to be giving us an alternate formula of words to speak at baptism instead of the words which Jesus himself gave us in Matthew 28:19. Those references say nothing about "how" the baptism took place or what was said during the baptism. They rather speak about the fact that baptism connects us to the blessings of salvation which God has provided for us in the life, death, and resurrection of his eternal Son. For instance, that is clearly the point that the Apostle Paul makes in Galatians 3:26-27 when he writes, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."
However, with that said, we would not say with absolute certainty that a baptism done "in the name of Jesus" would be invalid. Such a baptism would certainly raise doubts about its validity. Therefore, since Baptism is meant to work certainty about our salvation and not doubt, someone baptized with such an alternate formula might be wise to put his conscience at ease by being baptized using the words of Matthew 28.
One last point is crucial. If the words "in the name of Jesus" were used because the church body administering the baptism did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, then such a baptism would be invalid. To be baptized "in the name of Jesus" while denying what Scripture says about who he is, would be to make a mockery of what baptism is all about. Many of the churches who use the formula "in the name of Jesus" do not believe that God is both one in essence and at the same time also three distinct co-equal and co-eternal persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If the baptism you received was from such a church that denies the unique personality and deity of the Son of God, then there could be no baptism, for such a teaching denies the very essence of who Jesus is.
The following is from the Q & A section of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, http://www.wels.net. (I have posted this a couple of times on Dave Kenady's discussion board and it caused a big stir both times I did.)
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuItem_itemID=110&cuTopic_topicID=55
Q: Concerning baptism, I was baptized, "in the Name of Jesus", would Lutheran theology accept this baptism or should I be rebaptised in "the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"?
A: The references in the book of Acts to being baptized "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38; 8:16; and 10:48) do not appear to be giving us an alternate formula of words to speak at baptism instead of the words which Jesus himself gave us in Matthew 28:19. Those references say nothing about "how" the baptism took place or what was said during the baptism. They rather speak about the fact that baptism connects us to the blessings of salvation which God has provided for us in the life, death, and resurrection of his eternal Son. For instance, that is clearly the point that the Apostle Paul makes in Galatians 3:26-27 when he writes, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."
However, with that said, we would not say with absolute certainty that a baptism done "in the name of Jesus" would be invalid. Such a baptism would certainly raise doubts about its validity. Therefore, since Baptism is meant to work certainty about our salvation and not doubt, someone baptized with such an alternate formula might be wise to put his conscience at ease by being baptized using the words of Matthew 28.
One last point is crucial. If the words "in the name of Jesus" were used because the church body administering the baptism did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, then such a baptism would be invalid. To be baptized "in the name of Jesus" while denying what Scripture says about who he is, would be to make a mockery of what baptism is all about. Many of the churches who use the formula "in the name of Jesus" do not believe that God is both one in essence and at the same time also three distinct co-equal and co-eternal persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If the baptism you received was from such a church that denies the unique personality and deity of the Son of God, then there could be no baptism, for such a teaching denies the very essence of who Jesus is.