Trinitarian Baptism

Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is good practice. I’d be leery of any church that did otherwise. On the other hand, I’d also be suspicious of any church that elevates it above good practice to the level of a magical incantation, and a requirement that is not commanded by God.  If your church says that only such baptisms are valid, your church is in serious error. ^[1]

In the Great Commission ^[2], Jesus instructs the church to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (Matt 28:19). However, He does not say, “And make sure you say it exactly like this. Do not deviate from this wording.” It should not be viewed as a command for a precise script. 

Any proper Christian baptism is implicitly in the name of the Triune God in spite of whether those words are spoken rather than because. (And again, I believe it is good practice.)  Most likely as Jesus was sending the church on its foreign mission (all nations) as it were, a good baptismal creed for those unfamiliar with this new expression of monotheism would include an introductory trinitarian reference. 

This of course does not mean you can say anything you like. And you won't. Because if this is a baptism ordained by God and used by Him as a means of grace, we can expect that the Holy Spirit will play a role in ensuring the baptism is God-honoring, regardless of the exact wording. The Holy Spirit will in fact provide the wording without dictating or suppressing personality, in that mysterious Holy-Spirity way He does the the very same thing elsewhere. 

Anyone claiming that a baptism is not valid because it did not include a certain phrase is essentially issuing a dictum to God that He is not permitted to dispense grace in this instance, whether He wants to or not, because the right words were not spoken. That is a major-league level of hutzpah. 

Now for those more familiar with monotheism, especially for Jews, it was perhaps more important to emphasize the deity of Christ. That may be why the earliest baptismal creed did not invoke the trinity, but just one person thereof:

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) 

And [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:48) 

On hearing this, they were baptized [by Paul] in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:5)

Did Paul and Peter violate an explicit command from the Great Commission? I submit they did not. 

The hip-dislocating gymnastics that one must go through to reconcile a belief that valid baptisms must (as opposed to “would be well served to”) include the phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” with the early apostolic-era (and inspired) counter-examples found in scripture is something to behold. I will not repeat the arguments, because not one of them holds water. 

Every piece of theology devised and every doctrine developed runs the real risk of being guilty of claiming in effect: “God didn’t actually spell this out in scripture. He must not have had time. But we worked it out for him. Trust us.” For derived doctrine: less is more, and more is less. 

Which of course does not mean that all derived doctrine is bad, it just means we have a fallen human tendency to create more than we need and label our inventions as “Great Christian Truths.” Examine critically, and be suspicious when “good and necessary consequences” is abused as a carte blanch to declare a complex derived doctrine as valid and even binding.

"Good and necessary consequences" is a tool to be used sparingly, not liberally.

     

---

^[1] To be fair there is another camp that makes the same category error, arguing that only baptisms in the name of Jesus (i.e. without the trinitarian reference) are valid. There really is very little that theologians can not overly complicate and bind what God has loosed. 

 ^[2] My usual rant on this matter: The Great Commission is for the Church, not for individuals. It is awful when it is used like this: “The Great Commission means that we all have to evangelize.” That is not the case. The church must evangelize, and some (but not all) in the church are gifted as evangelists. When the Great Commission is improperly applied to individuals, it creates unnecessary and harmful guilt among those not so gifted, those who can and do participate in the church’s evangelical mission using their gifts (teaching, hospitality, etc.) but who are not and should not be on the front lines. Scripture says as much (Eph. 4:11).