Is Water Baptism In Jesus Name Necessary For Salvation, 1 Corinthians 1:14-17

 

"…12What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, “I follow Paul”, “I follow Apollos”, “I follow Cephas” or “I follow Christ”. 13IS CHRIST DIVIDED? WAS PAUL CRUCIFIED FOR YOU? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel ..." 1 Corinthians 1:12-17

 

Many Evangelicals erroneously affirm that Paul’s words, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to PREACH the gospel,” proves that baptism is not a part of the gospel.

 

The word “baptize” from the Greek word “baptizo” means to immerse into water but the word “preach” means “to announce or to proclaim the good news”. The word “PREACH” was translated from the Greek word, Euaggelizó : to announce or to proclaim the good news. Christ called Paul to "PREACH" the gospel. "PREACHING THE GOSPEL" and baptizing new converts are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. For to preach the gospel means to PROCLAIM or to ANNOUNCE the gospel. Water baptism is not preaching or announcing but carrying out the command that was PREACHED or ANNOUNCED! Therefore, Paul was not saying that baptism was not a part of the gospel; he was stating that Christ sent him to PROCLAIM the good news by public speaking.

 

Paul was not sent to baptize the multitudes who were converted under his ministry because that would have taken up far too much time. Paul only baptized those who would become leaders and then those leaders baptized all new converts in each city. Since Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth, it makes sense that Paul would baptize him first along with another assisting Elder (perhaps Gaius). Then those appointed leaders could baptize the Corinthian converts.

 

Trinitarian Apologist Ethan Smith

 

It amazes me how Trinitarians blatantly twist the scriptures to their own destruction. Ethan Smith essentially said that to be baptized into some ones name means to come under their authority while affirming that somehow this means that we do not have to be baptized into Christ’s name. Why would true followers of Jesus refuse water baptism into Christ’s name? For by rejecting baptism into Jesus Christ we are not coming under Christ’s authority as the head of the Church.

 

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 says, "…12What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, “I follow Paul”, “I follow Apollos”, “I follow Cephas” or “I follow Christ”. 13IS CHRIST DIVIDED? WAS PAUL CRUCIFIED FOR YOU? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?"

 


In 1 Cor. 1:12-13, Paul was clearly condemning the use of any other name beside Jesus Christ in water baptism. The words, "IS CHRIST DIVIDED" and "WAS PAUL CRUCIFIED FOR YOU" provides clear evidence that no Christian believer is to be baptized into any name other than CHRIST who "WAS CRUCIFIED FOR YOU". Therefore, the Evangelical Trinitarian argument that water baptism is not a necessary part of the gospel is lame and unscriptural.

 

Jesus himself proved that his name is the name of God the Father when he prayed, "Holy Father, keep them THROUGH YOUR NAME, THE NAME WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN ME" (John 17:11; see also John 5:43; Jeremiah 24:5-6; Isaiah 9:6; Phil. 2:9). Since Jesus is clearly the Father's Name (Yahweh Saves), there can only be one name of the Father and the Son we are to be baptized into, the name of Jesus (Yahweh Saves). Thus, Matthew 28:19 enunciates the command to baptize in the singular name of the Father and Son which was clearly invoked as Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38.  

 

Trinitarian apologists often emphasize that not all baptisms in the book of Acts were conducted with the same word for word verbatim formula in order to suggest that the invocation of the name of Jesus is somehow not necessary.

 

Trinitarian apologist Tim Martin

 

Trinitarian apologist Tim Martin made this allegation in his lecture against the necessity of baptism in Jesus Name.

 Play YouTube video from 20:24 - 20:43 - https://youtu.be/cO4rWigb87A

 

Few if any knowledgeable Oneness apologists would suggest that there must be an exact word for word verbatim formula when invoking the name of Jesus in water baptism other than saying “the Lord Jesus” or “the name of Jesus Christ”. The Acts Church baptized either in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord Jesus because either "Christ" or "Lord" always accompanied the name of "Jesus" in water baptism to clearly identify the name of the Jesus person we are to be baptized into. Since no human being other than Jesus “the Lord” as Jesus the “Christ” is the true Messiah, the apostles and evangelists of the early church always used either “Christ” or “Lord” along with invoking the name of Jesus in water baptism to annunciate the true Jesus person they invoked.

 

Trinitarian Apologist Ethan Smith

 

Trinitarian apologist Ethan Smith who actively studies Greek purposefully cited Acts 10:48 in the King James Version which says, “in the name of the Lord” rather than translations which reflect the early Greek manuscripts which all say, “in the name of Jesus Christ. In Mr. Smith’s lecture against the necessity of baptism in Jesus Name, he actually stated that there are manuscripts which say “in the name of the Lord”. While there are English manuscripts which say “in the name of the Lord,” I challenge Mr. Smith to cite an actual early Greek manuscript prior to 1000 AD which says, “in the name of the Lord” rather than “in the name of Jesus Christ”.

Play the video from 1:36 - 1:52 – From YouTube video: https://youtu.be/a5F343b5kdg

 

It is hard to imagine that an erudite student of Greek like Ethan Smith would not know that all of the early Greek texts say, “in the name of Jesus Christ” rather than “in the name of the Lord” (KJV). Here we can see how knowledgeable Trinitarian apologists often take advantage of the simple naivety of most Oneness Pentecostal believers who know little or nothing about Greek and the English translations from the early Greek manuscripts. While Mr. Smith is very clever for purposefully not citing the vast majority of the translations of Acts 10:48 which he knows are accurate, he is also very deceptive for purposefully withholding the plain meaning of the early Greek manuscripts when he cited an inaccurate translation of Acts 10:48. 

 

Acts 10:48 in the KJV says, “in the Name of the Lord” but all of the early Greek texts actually state, “in the name of Jesus Christ”. Since the early Greek texts all say, “Iesous Christos” (Greek for “Jesus Christ”) rather than “the Lord”, Trinitarian apologists have no scriptural justification in trying to take advantage of the Oneness Pentecostal preference for the King James Version. When Trinitarian apologists cite Acts 10:48 in the KJV while knowing that the original Greek texts say, “in the name of Jesus Christ”, they are knowingly misquoting the meaning of the original Greek in order to purposefully mislead and deceive Oneness believers into thinking that Acts 10:48 is not a reference to baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ”. 

 

All of the respectable translations which use the early Greek manuscripts accurately translate Acts 10:48 as to “be baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.”

 

New International Version
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
 


New Living Translation
So he gave orders for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Afterward Cornelius asked him to stay with them for several days.
 


English Standard Version
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
 


Berean Study Bible
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for a few days.
 


Berean Literal Bible
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain some days.



New American Standard Bible
And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.



Trinitarian apologists often emphasize that not all baptisms in the book of Acts were conducted with the same word for word verbatim formula in that three different Greek prepositions are used in the book of Acts. Thus, they suggest that the invocation of the name of Jesus is somehow not necessary.

 

Trinitarian apologist Tim Martin

 

Play the video clip from Trinitarian apologist Tim Martin from 20:47 - 21:42

From YouTube: https://youtu.be/cO4rWigb87A

The three different Greek prepositions used in baptism are EPI (Acts 2:38) "on", "upon", the Name of Jesus / EIS (Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5) "into", the Name of Jesus / EN and (Acts 10:48) "in" the Name of Jesus. 
The Acts 2:38 use of EPI reveals that we are to believe "on" or "upon" Jesus Christ upon our being baptized into his name. Hence, belief and baptism into his name are tied together. "He that BELIEVES and IS BAPTIZED shall be saved". Mark 16:16

 

Acts 16:29-34 (Holman's Christians Standard Bible) says, "Then the jailer called for lights, rushed in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30Then he escorted them out and said, “Sirs, WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?" 31So they said, “BELIEVE ON (EPI - "on" or "upon") the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved — you and your household.” 32Then they spoke the message of the Lord to him along with everyone in his house. 33He took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds. RIGHT AWAY HE AND ALL HIS FAMILY WERE BAPTIZED. 34He brought them into his house, set a meal before them, and REJOICED BECAUSE HE HAD BELIEVED GOD WITH HIS ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD".

 

Notice how EPI is used in believing upon the Lord Jesus to be saved and its connections with the words, "RIGHT AWAY he and all of his family were baptized. Jesus clearly stated, "He that believes AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED (Mark 16:16)". Water baptism is thus linked with believing upon Jesus for salvation.

 

Trinitarian apologist Tim Martin mistranslated the Greek preposition EIS in Acts 2:38 which literally means “INTO (EIS) the remission of sins.” By stating that it means “BECAUSE OF the remission of sins,” Mr. Martin is adding to the words of inspired scripture and twisting its original meaning.

Play the YouTube video from 26:40 - 28:05 - From YouTube: https://youtu.be/cO4rWigb87A

 

The Greek word “EIS” cannot mean “because of” because EIS literally means “into.” “Into” and “because of” are completely different meanings. I challenge everyone to find a single Concordance, Interlinear, or Greek text that says “because of” the remission of sins. The Strong’s Concordance and the New American Standard Concordance say that EIS means “INTO,” but never “BECAUSE OF”. 

 

Mr. Martin stated that people go to the store to purchase aspirin “because of” their headaches. Yet it is hard to imagine someone going to the store to by aspirin “into” their headaches.

 

Mark 1:4 uses the same Greek preposition EIS as in Acts 2:38 which literally means "INTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS" in the context of water baptism. Mark 1:4 says, "John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance INTO (EIS) THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS".

 

In like manner, Acts 2:38 also uses the Greek preposition EIS "INTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS". "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you (EPI) UPON the name of Jesus Christ (EIS) INTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

 

People who are baptized "INTO" WATER through faith in Jesus Christ are being baptized "INTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." After true faith and repentance, there can be no doubt that NT water baptism is to be conducted "in", "into" or "upon" the name of Jesus Christ "into the forgiveness of sins".

Play Tim Martin’s lecture against water baptism in Jesus name from 22:35 - 23:27 - From YouTube: https://youtu.be/cO4rWigb87A

 

Stop in the name of the Law

 

Many Trinitarians use the stop in the name of the law argument in arguing against the plain scriptural evidence. The Name of the Law argument is untenable because there is no person named "law". But we do know a person named Jesus who has a real name that was given by the angel to Joseph the husband of Mary.

Matthew 1:21 states, "you shall CALL HIS NAME JESUS for he shall save his people from their sins."

Was the angel affirming that we are not to invoke the name of Jesus or call upon his name because we are only to invoke or call upon the authority of Jesus? To call upon or invoke the name of Jesus is what brings his authority and power. If we are not to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in baptism, then neither are we to invoke the name of Jesus Christ when praying for the sick, casting out demons, or in any of our prayers.

Play the video tape from 24:20 - 24:38 - From YouTube: https://youtu.be/cO4rWigb87A

 

In Acts 16:18 the text states that Paul actually said, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her” when he cast out the spirit of divination from the slave girl in the city of Thyatira. To deny that Acts 16:18 is addressing the actual words of Paul is to deny the

 

inspiration of the text of sacred scripture. Yet this is precisely what Trinitarian apologist Tim Martin does by citing Acts 16:18 and then stating that Paul only meant the authority of Jesus rather than invoking the name of Jesus for exorcism.

 

It is hard to imagine that the apostles did not invoke the name of Jesus when the scriptures give us the actual word for word verbatim accounts of the apostles invoking the name of Jesus Christ for exorcism and miracles. It is hard to imagine that Peter did not also invoke the name of Jesus when he prayed for the lame man, saying, "Silver and gold have I none … in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk (Acts 3:6)!" Acts 3:6 clearly cites the actual words of the apostle Peter when he prayed over the lame man. Since the name of Jesus Christ was invoked by Peter for a miracle, his name is clearly linked with his authority. Hence, we need to invoke his name for his authority. The same is true in water baptism.

 

No one can reply to Oneness Apologist Steve Ritchie’s challenge

 

I challenge any apologist who believes that water baptism is not to be conducted "into the forgiveness of sins" to cite a single early Christian writer within the first 500 years of Christian history who ever denied that water baptism was necessary for salvation. No one has answered my challenge because none of the earliest Christians believed in the later Protestant denial of the necessity of water baptism into the forgiveness of sins.


Even the Nicene Creed anathematizes anyone who would reject the necessity of water baptism because the Nicene Creed says, "one baptism for the remission of sins". The Nicene Creed does not use the words "faith", "repentance" or "because of" in the context of "one baptism for the remission of sins". Therefore, the early Nicene Creed itself condemns the later Protestant reformers who began teaching that baptism does not save us in the seventeenth century.

 

1 Peter 3:21 says, "baptism now saves you ..." (NASB).

 

 

For More ARTICLES

For Free BOOKS
For Video Teachings, subscribe to our YOUTUBE CHANNEL

 

 

 

 

Please reload

C O N T A C T

© 2016 | GLOBAL IMPACT MINISTRIES