A) A LITTLE HISTORY.

B) TO THE BIBLE STUDY.

C)WATER AND TOTAL IMMERSON.

D) BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.

E) NOTES FROM MY FAVORITE BIBLE COMMENTATOR.

F) A LOOK AT RE- BAPTISM.

G) A LOOK AT INFANT BAPTISM.

H) BAPTISMAL FORMULAS.

 

 

A) A LITTLE HISTORY

 

 

The Jewish word “Mikveh” is totally understood in the Jewish culture as, “Running Water.”  This would be the proper understanding of Baptism.  To be “Mikveh[ed],” or Baptized in the Jewish understanding of Baptism, one must be “Mikveh[ed],” i.e., Baptized in “Running Water,” and totally immersed in that water (total cleansing).  The point is, that your sins would then be washed away “down-stream.”  And when you rose from out of the watery depths, the Rabbi would exclaim, “Born Again.”

 

By contrast, when Jesus was baptized, no such proclamation was given, except that of His Father, “This is My beloved Son, in Whom I Am well pleased,” Matthew 3:17.  The reason is that Jesus did not need to be “Born Again.”  But rather, it showed that He was separating His ministry in His former life to His new ministry; that of being the Savior of the world.  How He related to friends and family (past relationships) was now going to change.

 

The year was 1526 A.D.  The event, was the execution of Felix Mountz.  The place was Zurich, Switzerland.  His crime?  Felix had been baptizing adults (not infants) by total water emersion.

 

The Zurich city magistrates chose to execute Felix, not by the usual way of burning one at the stake, or by beheading him, but by what they deemed would fit the crime for which he was judged for.  Therefore, they drowned him in Lake Zurich, in Switzerland.

 

Now Ulrich Zwingli, who was a key figure in the reformation and the spiritual leadership in Zurich, wrote to a friend defending the action of the council.  It must be understood that these city officials were supporters of Zwingli’s protestant reformation, and they believed that babies should be baptized.  So you see, Felix Mountz, had been baptizing adult believers in defiance of this church state ruling; forbidding that practice of baptizing adults, since they had supposedly already been baptized as infants.

 

But why so drastic a penalty as the “death penalty” for baptizing an adult?  In those days, if one church decides to baptize by infant baptism and another by consenting adult, they all just agreed to disagree.  Or in other words, no one is executed for doing either.  So why did the Swiss reformers think Felix Mountz should die for what was in their day a crime?

 

In order to understand how this came to be a crime we need to understand the governmental and religious systems of the 12th to 15th centuries.  In the Europe of the early Fifteen Hundreds, separation of church and state did not exist.  In fact, infant baptism was seen as the union of church and state.  People were born as citizens of the state, just as one is deemed a citizen of the country they are born in today.  As soon as possible, parents would bring their child to the church in order to be considered a baptized member of that church.  Every person became a member of the “State Church” before even he or she could even think morally or repentantly.  And to a 15th and 16th century European, that was just the way society had to be and had to operate.  In fact, this is pretty much how Christendom had been for hundreds of years.

 

When the protestant reformation came about, many denominations saw no need to change the “State Church” union.  Lutherans simply wanted a Lutheran State instead of a Catholic one.  Swiss reformers wanted their own Swiss Cantons.  Calvin’s simply wanted Calvinism to rule.  In fact, later on, in Geneva, Switzerland, Calvin’s reform movement was backed by the authority of the city.  In all of these places, every person became a member of the church through infant baptism, just like they were and had been in Catholic controlled regions.  To not do this was as unthinkable as to not be a member of a country you are born in today.

 

Here is the key.  A man without a country was not as bad as a man outside of a church.  At least you would not be lost for eternity; as it was believed to be back in the Sixteen Hundreds.  Baptizing babies put everybody inside of the church and state and kept everything nice and orderly.  This put church leaders and magistrates in a position of unchallenged authority.  To challenge infant baptism was viewed as an attack on society.

 

So why was it challenged?  What was the problem?  The problem was a correct understanding of the Holy Bible.  It taught that only repentant believers could be baptized.  That made infant baptism a logical impossibility.  A decision to be baptized is made “for” the child, and not “by” the child.

 

At the trial of Felix Mountz, Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, was asked to give Biblical reasons why infant baptism should be the correct rule of society, as it had always been for centuries, against overwhelming Biblical evidence.  He did not do that however.  He could have played upon the fact that tradition and custom had stood the test of time and brought about societal order.  In fact, what had normally seemed right to the masses was in Zwingli’s favor.

 

So here is how he decided to attach Mountz’s Biblical based principles.  Zwingli attacked Mountz’s ideas as being divisive, even resorting to name calling, such as calling him a “schismatic,” meaning he was a treat to the order of society.  But it was his theological argument that played tremendously into the known fear of the common people of the time.

 

Here it is.  If you did not baptize a baby and he died, it would not go to Heaven.  It would lose out on eternal life.  Even though Mountz countered with the fact that the Bible gives no account of a baby being baptized.  In fact, the only account that should count is what our Lord did in His life.  He was taken to the Temple to be dedicated (Luke 2:27), not baptized.  And He was not baptized until He was about thirty.  There is also an account of mothers bringing their children to Jesus so he could bless (or better, dedicate) them (Mark 10:14).

 

However, the fear that a baby would be lost without being baptized was a strong motivator for the execution of Felix Mountz.  Many church and state leaders held to beliefs going back to statements such as:  “If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized. . . let him be anathema.”  418 A.D.

 

Below is why Felix Mountz was willing to die for his beliefs.

 

 

B) TO THE BIBLE STUDY

 

 

According to Colossians 2:11-13:  “[11] circumcision made without hands [equals] [12] Buried with Him in baptism. . . [wherein you become] [13] dead in your sins” = The ceremony of Baptism has replaced circumcision.

 

The word “baptism” originally carried with it an entirely different meaning then is now ascribed to it (500 years before Christ).   Originally a “Baptist” was a person who had different mixtures of colors and dies to change the color of one’s cloth.  And a person would bring a particular cloth to the “Baptist” in order to change its color.  The “Baptist” would take the cloth of a certain color, immerse it in his colors and dies, and then bring it forth in its new color.  The corresponding implication is now obvious.  When a person is totally, and it must be totally immersed in water, their identity is changed and they are a new creature in Christ Jesus.

 

Let us Read Matthew 3:13-16: “(13) Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. (14) But John forbad Him, saying, I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me? (15) And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now:  for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.  Then He suffered him. (16) And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.”  One thing we must be totally clear about is that Jesus is our example in all things (John 13:15; 1Pe. 2:21; 1Jo. 2:6).  Thus, to be Baptized as Christ was baptized, would be only fitting for us to follow after His example.

 

According to John 3:5, from our Lord’s mouth Himself, we have:  “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Now how important is Baptism?

 

An important Bible principle to remember is that once a person is convicted of the truth, he/she will want to be baptized:  “(12) But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (13) Then Simon himself believed also:  and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.”  Acts 8:12-13.  “(37) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.  And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still:  and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”  Acts 8:37-38.  See also Acts 2:38; 22:16.  Thus, Jesus instructed us as believers to:  “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”  Matthew 28:19.  Also, take particular note of the actions of Saul upon belief in Christ (Acts 9:18 = immediately he was baptized).

 

“The descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Gentiles was not an equivalent for baptism.  The requisite steps in conversion, in all cases, are {ONE} faith, {TWO} repentance, and {THREE} baptism.  Thus the true Christian Church are united in one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph. 4:5].”  3SP:332.

 

 

C) WATER AND TOTAL IMMERSION

 

 

If we look at Mark 16:16, we discover “born of water.”  This is not only physical baptism, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit (compare Acts 18:25 with 19:3-6).

 

Now let’s notice the significance of water being present in a Biblical baptism.  In the texts above (Mat. 3:13-16) Jesus Himself tells John to baptize Him in the river Jordan (water).  And John himself confirms this in John 1:31:  “. . . that He [Jesus] should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.”  See also Mark 1:8-9; Acts 1:5; 11:16.  In Acts 8:36, the Ethiopian eunuch seems to pull water out of his hat with his suggestion that water needed to be present in order for him to be baptized.  But either Philip explained this to him, or the eunuch knew how to be Biblically baptized (Acts 8:38-39).

 

Even more startling is the fact that Paul teaches us that the fathers of the nation of Israel were all baptized under (note “under”) the waters of the Red Sea (1Co. 10:1-2).   And Peter teaches us that Noah and the other eight persons on the ark were baptized by the waters of the flood (1Pe. 3:20).  The question is -- Why is that significant enough to mention, or what prompted Paul to explain to the Corinthians that the fathers needed to be/were baptized?  Even Peter wanted water to be administered to people who had been baptized with the baptism of the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:47).

 

As far as the Greek word “baptizo” goes, the Greek language has had a continuous history, and “baptizo” is used today in the nation of Greece for baptism.  As is well known, not only in Greece, but also all over Russia, wherever the Greek Church prevails, immersion is the unbroken and universal practice.  The Greeks may surely be credited with knowledge of the meaning of their own language, in that in practicing “baptizo,” one is fully immersed and any other form of “baptizo” would be considered blasphemy.  The symbolism of baptism is highly contained in the symbolism used in Romans 6:4:  “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:  that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”  To be “buried” as a requirement can hardly be met by sprinkling or anything less than being totally immersed in water.

 

In his sermon on baptism, Luther states:  “The word ‘baptism’ comes from the Greek word baptizo and from the Latin mersia, and signifies, to plunge one entirely in water, so that he will be entirely covered. . . Baptism is a Greek word which can be translated immersion, as when we plunge something in water that it may be entirely covered.”  “Catechism,” article “Baptism,” pages 131-132.  Calvin certifies that “the word ‘baptism’ signifies to plunge entirely, and that it is certain the custom thus totally to plunge was anciently observed in the church.”  “Institution chretienne,”tome II., “livre” 4. page 19.  “We see here (Acts 8:38) how the ancients used to administer baptism; it was customary with them to plunge the entire body in water.”  “Comment.,” tome II., pages 61-62.

 

According to history, the original form of baptism was “total immersion.”  The “French-Latin Dictionary,” written and published by a society of Catholic priests at Trevoux, France, in the Sixteenth Century, article “Baptism,” says:  “the primitive Church baptized by immersion, and even to this day the entire Greek Church baptizes the same way; indeed, the Greek word baptizo signifies to plunge.”

 

The “L’Encyclopedie Methodique,” published in Paris, France, from 1782 to 1832, under, “Theology,” Volume 1., article, “Baptism,” we find the following words: “We would like to know why Protestants, who profess scrupulously to follow the primitive Church, have not renewed the custom of baptizing by immersion.”

 

The same voluminous work, “Theology,” Vol. II., article “Immersion,” states:  “Immersion the action of plunging in water any body whatever.  It is certain that during the first centuries of the Church, the custom was to administer baptism by immersion; that is, to say, by plunging the individual in water from head to foot.  It appears that St. John thus baptized the Jews in Jordan; that Jesus Christ administered baptism in the same way through His disciples.  John 4:2.  Thus, in the beginning, to baptize was to plunge in water, or cover with water, the entire man. . . According to the instructions of the apostles, the person who was baptized by being buried in water and then coming up out of water, commemorated the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  St. Paul says to the Colossians:  ‘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.’  Col. 2:12.”

 

In the “Cictionaire de l’Aeademie francuise,” we find: “In the first centuries of the church, baptism was conferred by immersion.”

 

In “D Abbe C. Brandeville, dans le Dictionnaite de la concersation et de la Lecture, par Dukett et d’antres derivains,” tome II., article “Bapteme,” Paris, 1851-1858, we read:  “The rule followed till the twelfth century, was to baptize by immersion, by plunging in water the body of him who received the sacrament.  The inconveniences and dangers attending this practice led to the adoption of the simpler mode of sprinkling.”  The French Catholic Historian Fleury, in his work, “Historie Ecclesiastique,” tome V., page 627, speaking of the ancient custom in England, says: “The Bishop Paulin in 627 established his seat in the city of York. . . In those beginnings he baptized in rivers, because oratories and baptisteries had not yet been built.  This shows that they baptized by immersion.”

 

There exists ancient baptisteries, which were originally made to plunge people in, some of which are found in different parts of the Old World, see “Encycloped e des Sciences religieuses,” tome II., article “Baptistere.”  “From the time of Constantine,” says the Abbe Martigny, “the solemn administration of baptism occurred only in baptisteries built by the Church.  It is certain that in the beginning there were no other baptisteries but rivers and fountains.”  “Dict. des Antiquites chretiennes, an mot Bapteme.”  “At Rome the new converts were led to the Tiber.  There still remains in the prison of Mamertime, the miraculous well in which, according to tradition, St. Peter and St. Paul baptized their guardians Processus and Martimanus.”  “ibid.”  According to “Abbe Racine’s Abregee de l’Histoire ecclesiastique,” tome V., pages 8-11, “. . . the twenty-fourth day of April of the year 1125. . . they baptized by immersion, having, in all that they did, due regard for honesty and Christian modesty.”

 

“The first case on record of anything being used for baptism except immersion is the case of Novatian, given by Eusebius. Novatian, being very sick and it being thought he would die immediately, had water poured all over him in bed.  This occurred not earlier than 251 A.D.  But Novatian recovered and was refused recognition by the church because of the incompleteness of his baptism.  Other sick persons subsequently desired to receive this ‘clinical’ baptism, but the authorities of the church strongly condemned it, yet the custom gradually grew in spite of these objections.”  “The Signs of the Times,” Volume 3, page 20.

 

The “Encyclopedia Britannica” says:  “The Council of Ravenna in 1311 was the first council of the church which legalized baptism by sprinkling, by leaving it to the choice of the officiating minister.”  “In the early days of the church, only adults who presented themselves freely and with a consciousness of what they were doing, were baptized.”  “La Vie chretienne dans les premiers siecles (Christian life in the First Centuries),” paragraph Aug. “Neandre,” chapter. 9, page 343.

 

“In the apostolic age, baptism was administered by immersion, and was followed by the laying on of hands. Acts 8:17; 19:5 & 6.  It is very probable that it was conferred only of adults.  John baptized after a confession of sins, and the apostles themselves administered baptism only to those who repented of their sins (see Luke 3:3; Acts 19:4), or in whom the desire to be baptized led others to suppose that they had repented.”  “Encyclopedie des Sciences religieuses,” tome II., article “Bapteme.”

 

 

D) BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE SAVED

 

 

CONSIDER:  John 3:5 above and Mark 16:16:  “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”  And First Peter 3:21:  “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  Then consider John 3:5 which states:  “Except a man be born of water [i.e., baptism] and of the Spirit [i.e., conversion], [JESUS SAYS; and isn’t He the authority here?] HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”

 

Baptism is a formal representation of the washing away of one’s sins.  In Acts 22:16, we notice here that Paul is instructed to be baptized before he can minister.  According to Titus 3:5, Christ “saved us, by the washing of regeneration.”  In First Peter 3:21, according to this verse we are “saved” through baptism, of which unless we are washed (by the blood of Jesus 1Jo. 1:7), we CANNOT be saved.  In other words, look at it this way:  As the shed blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior represents the cleansing of sin in our lives when we accept Him into our hearts and believe in His sacrifice, so does baptism represent to the world our belief in these same principles.  Plus the resurrection of Christ (see Col. 2:12 and also Rom. 6:1-7 which is referred to next).  And this resurrection states to the world in figurative language in Romans, Chapter Six, that we shall “walk in newness of life,” verse 4, meaning, “we should not serve sin,” verse 6, anymore after baptism.  Not that we will not have mishaps.  But that we will not be servants of sin; seeking constantly to “overcome.”

 

However, this places the true emphasis where it lies.  If we look at Mark 16:16 again, we can see that Jesus places more of the emphasis upon “faith” than He does “baptism.”  Notice that He does not say, “He that is baptized and believeth shall be saved; but he that is baptized not shall be damned.”  Suffice it to say that “baptism” is as important to professing your Christianity as is the wedding ceremony to the marriage.  We may not need it to have the position, but it would be silly not to perform it.

 

If baptism were not in the least very important, why does Paul classify it so by stating, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” Ephesians 4:5?  If it was not important, then Paul could have stated something like, “One Lord, one faith, one cheeseburger.”  The fact is, Paul is teaching us that we are responsible to “One Lord,” and that we must have “faith” in “One Lord,” and that we are to be “baptized” into “One Lord.”

 

Again, take particular note of the actions of Saul upon belief in Christ (Acts 9:18 = immediately he was baptized); just as was done by the “Eunuch,” in Acts 8:36; and the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:33; and the “twelve” [see Acts 19:7] in Acts 19:5.

 

 

E) NOTES FROM MY FAVORITE BIBLE COMMENTATOR

 

 

Here is the Churches responsibility upon the subject of Baptism:  “Not one should be buried with Christ by baptism unless they are critically examined whether they have ceased to sin, whether they have fixed moral principles, whether they know what sin is, whether they have moral defilement which God abhors.  Find out by close questioning if these persons are really ceasing to sin, if with David they can say, I hate sin with a perfect hatred.”  “Letter 26d, 1887, page 6; 6MR:165.

 

“Christ has made baptism the sign of entrance to His spiritual kingdom.  He has made this a positive condition with which all must comply who wish to be acknowledged as under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”  6T:91.

 

“Jesus did not receive baptism as a confession of guilt on His Own account.  He identified Himself with sinners, taking the steps that we are to take, and doing the work that we must do.  His life of suffering and patient endurance after His baptism was also an example to us.”  DA;111.2.

 

“Jesus was our example in all things that pertain to life and Godliness.  He was baptized in Jordan, just as those who come to Him must be baptized.”  YI:95.

 

 

F) A LOOK AT RE-BAPTISM

 

 

Concerning re-baptism, in discovering Acts 19:1-5, we see that these were not “baptized” in the “name of the Lord Jesus,” verse 5.  And as such, needed to be re-baptised.

 

From 3SP:420 & LP:133 we read:  “There are many at the present day who have unwittingly violated one of the precepts of God’s Law.  When the understanding is enlightened, and the claims of the Fourth Commandment are urged upon the conscience, they see themselves sinners in the sight of God. . .

 

“The honest seeker after truth will not plead ignorance of the Law as an excuse for transgression.  Light was within his reach.  God’s Word is plain, and Christ has bidden him search the Scriptures.  He reveres God’s Law as Holy, just, and good, and he repents of his transgression.  By faith he pleads the atoning blood of Christ, and grasps the promise of pardon.  His former baptism does not satisfy him now.  He has seen himself a sinner, condemned by the Law of God.  He has experienced anew a death to sin, and he desires again to be buried with Christ by baptism, that he may rise to walk in newness of life.  Such a course is in harmony with the example of Paul in baptizing the Jewish converts [Acts 19:1-5].  That incident was recorded by the Holy Spirit as an instructive lesson for the Church.”

 

“And when a soul is truly reconverted, let him be rebaptized.  Let him renew his covenant with God, and God will renew His covenant with him.”  7MR:262.

 

“There are many who will need rebaptizing, but let them never go down into the water until they are dead to sin, cured of selfishness and self-exaltation; until they can come up out of the water to live a new life unto God.  Faith and repentance are conditions essential to the forgiveness of sin.”  “Letter 60, 1906,” pages 4-6; To S. N. Haskell, February 8, 1906; 7MR:267.

 

 

G) A LOOK AT INFANT BAPTISM

 

 

“No question has been more fully discussed than that of infant baptism.  The most distinguished church historians of today acknowledge that this custom cannot be traced to the apostolic age.”  “Hist. des trois premiers siecles de l’Eglise,” tome II., page 488, Note G.  Speaking of the Petrobrusians and Henricians of southern France, Peter the Venerable, Abbe of Clugny, in his letter entitled, “Against the Petrobrusians,” says:  “They deny that children can be saved by baptism before coming to the years of understanding,”  In “Jacques Cappel sur la Doctrine des Vaudois representee, par Claude Seissel (Sedan, 1618),” speaking about the Waldenses, “baptism of children,” was not done.  In “Hist. et Doctrine des Cathares Puritains on Albigeois, de Strasbourg,” tome I., chapater 3, page 26, we have this statement, “The Albigeois rejected the baptism of little children.”  See also, “Histoire des Albigeois et des Vaudois, adressce a Louis XIV.,” page 12, parle R.P. Benoit, predicateur de l’ordre de St. Dominique.  But what does the Bible say?

 

Mark 16:16 states:  “he that believeth,” which cannot be accomplished by the infantile mind, just as Philip stated to the Ethiopian:  “if thou believest. . . thou mayest be baptized,” Acts 8:37.  In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them.”  And in Luke 3:3, John the Baptist “came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance.”  These verses show us that there are prerequisites to understanding why and what one is being baptized into.  Because “teach” indicates that one must be old enough to learn and understand, and “repentance” would also be of an age that can comprehend and acknowledge their errors, being mature enough to turn from them.

 

 

H) BAPTISMAL FORMULAS

 

 

According to Matthew 28:19 believers are to be baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”  However, in Acts 2:38, we have a possible formula of only needing to be baptized “in the Name of Jesus Christ.”  The same is true for Acts 10:48, i.e., “in the Name of the Lord [meaning Jesus],” as is clarified in Acts 19:5, “in the Name of the Lord Jesus.”

 

It would hardly appear that the texts in the Book of Acts are to be used as the new formula for Baptism.  The main reason would be that, if this were the new formula, it would most likely have been an abridged version that did not deny the existence and use of the full formula (as given in Mat. 28:19).  Surely the strongest argument would be that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave the proper instruction originally, and gave an example of it at His very own Baptism, in that the three Persons of the Godhead were present.  The Father’s voice was heard; the Holy Ghost’s presence appeared in the form and symbol of a dove; and the Son, God in human flesh, rose out of the water.  Thus, Christ’s Baptism became a model for Christian believers throughout eternity.  The recognition of the Heavenly trio unites us with the Heavenly family.

 

We must remember, that in the Book of Acts people were invited to be baptized in the Name of Jesus because of its theological importance.  Most people acknowledged that there was a God back then, but they needed to acknowledge that they were being asked to place their trust in Jesus as their personal God and Savior.  Since the emphasis was on Jesus as Savior in the Book of Acts, there was no need to refer to the full Trinitarian formula (since it most likely was already understood).  We must also remember that the phrase, be baptized “in the Name of Jesus Christ” is not to indicate that people were to be baptized using the original formula.

 

In fact, if there is to be any new formula in addition to the one given by our Lord (Mat. 28:19), it would be that we add the formula as given in Acts 22:16, in that the person being baptized would then “call” upon the Name of the Lord.  This formula and example has its origins in Genesis 4:26, where men “began. . . to call upon the Name of the LORD.”  Thus, this formula should be included in our baptismal services, in that when people are invited to be baptized, they are asked to acknowledge Jesus as Savior (which covers the Book of Acts) and worth of worship, which means they acknowledge Jesus as God and part of the Heavenly Trio, of which they are also acknowledging in their baptismal vow.

 

Thus, the passages in the Book of Acts in which baptism in the Name of Jesus is mentioned were not intended to describe the formula to be used in the act of baptism.  Those passages were not describing at all how baptism was to take place, but what was expected from the new convert.  Therefore, the statement, “be baptized in the Name of Jesus,” was not, properly speaking of a baptismal formula to be followed as was the one set out by our Lord (Mat. 28:19).

 

“Baptism is a most sacred and important ordinance, and there should be a thorough understanding as to its meaning.  It means repentance for sin, and the entrance upon a new life in Christ Jesus.  There should be no undue haste to receive the ordinance.  Let both parents and children count the cost.”  6T:93.

​