Anti-trinitarian errors, part one

For the backstory on this post, see the preceding one. I'VE FINALLY FINISHED WITH THIS POST. We will continue this discussion with two or three more posts. Also, read Leslie's apt thoughts on hurricanes and eschatology. http://leslie.blogs.com/.

New heresies are always really old heresies under new names, with new spins. The "new spin" in the old heresy of psuedo-Christian groups denying the trinity began in the years following the birth of modern pentecostalism, the "Azusa Street Revival" of 1903. And it basically comes down to this: fervent Christians, desirous of moving "farther with God" and convinced that they were living in the Last Days (and that the Last Days would herald "new revelation," or "the restoration of lost revelation") noticed this:

MATT 28:19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

and this:

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

and thought they saw a discrepancy. But surely there is no discrepancy? Surely the Bible doesn't contradict itself? So how can these passages be reconciled?

So they went to church leaders with the issue. And here is where we see that it is crucial for Christians to actually KNOW something about the Bible they adore. If enough learned Christians would have answered honestly and truly, "oneness" teaching would never have lifted off the ground. Unfortunately, what happened was, church leaders said, "Uh ... uh ... wow. Hadn't thought of that. Well ... we ought to take Jesus' words over Peter's, I guess."

This didn't sit well. And why should it? Because the words that Peter spoke were recorded in the Bible, the infallible Word of God. And Peter spoke them under the clear anointing of the Holy Spirit, which caused thousands to accept Jesus and sparked the birth of the Church. Would God have let Peter speak a great error in his first sermon, a sermon that the Holy Spirit blessed with His presence, a sermon that Luke recorded in Acts, which became a part of the canon? Of course not.

Obviously there must be an answer. But since church leaders didn't know, the well-meaning, but ignorant, young pentecostals took it upon themselves to find the answer (I don't mean to imply that the majority of pentecostals are anti-trinitarians. Indeed, they are not. It is as they say, "A few bad apples spoils the bunch").

So here is what they came up with: Matt 28:19 is a riddle. Jesus spoke it in such a way that the "foolish virgins," the "false Christians," would be confused and would repeat this verse as a baptismal formula. Thus, people who are baptized this way are baptized falsely -- they are not saved. Now, of course here we have the error that the act of baptism is what saves a person, and that baptism is a kind of incantation -- say the right pattern of words over a sinner, and he'll be saved after the dunking. Otherwise, the poor shmuck is in trouble.

They taught that the answer to the riddle is Acts 2:38. In other words:

Riddle: What is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Answer: Jesus Christ.

So figure out the riddle, answer it correctly, and you're saved. Otherwise, you're not.

They cited two reasons for their answer. One, they claimed that "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are not names, but titles. For instance, if I write you a check, you can only cash it if I sign my name. If I sign a title, like "Friend," then it isn't worth anything. I may be your friend, but "Friend" is not my proper name. The bank will not honor it. Therefore, God will not honor a baptism that is not done in a "name."

The second reason is that Jesus said to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rather than the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Get it? They claimed that the grammar of the passage indicates there is only one name that should be recited during a baptism, not three. So the traditional baptismal pronouncement then, is wrong in that it uses a plurality of names when the singular "name" tells us to do otherwise, and that, in fact, the three names are not really names at all, but rather, titles.

This is the teaching that I grew up under. It was always my impression that the "wicked trinitarians" were either ignorant of Acts 2:38, because they never really read the Bible, except for maybe John 3:16, or that they were aware of it but believed it was an uninspired passage that should be cut out of the Bible. It was only through education, personal study, and of course, ultimately, the grace of God that I found my way out of it. And of course, as is the case with many problems, once I was outside of the error I could see it for the illogical straw man it was.

In Koine Greek, the word for "name" is "onoma," which indicates power and authority,and is used for proper names as well as titles, as well as generic designations and metaphors, just as our English word "name" is used. For instance:

"Stop, in the name of the law!"
"Stop! In the name of love, before you break my heart."

Sometimes "onoma" means "reputation," as in Rev. 3:1 "thou hast a name that thou livest ..."

And according to Rev. 19:13, "The Word of God" is a "name."

There were many different baptisms in the first century, including various mikvehs and Greek pagan baptisms. And of course, John's baptism:

Acts 19:2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.

Why would Paul, as a response to "we haven't even heard anything about a Holy Spirit" say "then what baptism did you receive?" It's simple. He couldn't fathom how someone could have heard the baptizor say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," yet profess to being unfamiliar with the term "Holy Spirit."

Sticking with Paul:
1 Cor 1:14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.

Was he saying that if he'd baptized more people, his enemies would claim he was repeating "I baptize you in the name of Paul" before immersing him? Of course not. It was commonly accepted then, as it is now, that to baptize in someone's name means to baptize under the authority of that person. Baptism "in the name of Jesus" means baptism as commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:19, not something else.

Colossians 3:17 tells us to do EVERYTHING "in the name of the Lord Jesus." This does not mean we are to go around saying, audibly, "I now eat this chicken in the name of the Lord Jesus." "I flush this toilet in the name of the Lord Jesus." "I watch this ballgame in the name of the Lord Jesus."

As to the argument that Jesus said, in 28:19, "name" instead of "names," He was using the correct grammar for someone who was expressing exactly what baptizors ever since have expressed during orthodox baptismal services: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." To say that by saying "name" he was referring to one noun rather than three is neither true in Greek nor in English. From http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com

"Is this sentence correct as written?: 'The mis-hit golf ball sailed wildly ... striking the head of Mike, of Joe, of Charles, and of Bill.' Yes. 'Heads' would be correct ... only if these named worthies had multiple heads.

"The Bible is grammar-compliant in this respect: 'And in all that I have said to you, be circumspect and make no mention of the name of other gods, nor let it be heard from your mouth.' (Exodus 23:13)" The Bible links "name" instead of "names" with the plural "gods." Is the Bible wrong, or is oneness pentecostalism? I know in which camp I'd rather pitch my tent.

END OF PART ONE. STAY TUNED FOR MORE