What is born again and saved?

Theology
83

You say repentance follows faith—but Scripture doesn’t rubber-stamp that. John the Baptist came preaching repentance , not handing out theology degrees in faith development. Jesus’ first public command? “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). Paul didn’t tell the Athenians to believe so they could later consider repenting—he told them, “God now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Repentance is not post-faith maintenance; it’s ground zero for gospel response.

Yes, the Church calls people, through the Great Commission, to repent, believe, be baptized, to follow Jesus.

What I’m not seeing, in the Scripture you provide, is the idea that someone, apart from faith, can repent. In the opening of St. Mark’s Gospel we read Jesus saying, “Repent and believe the Gospel, for the kingdom of God is near”. All these things are brought together: repent, believe, the kingdom is at hand.

What I have yet to see in Scripture is a step-by-step process where a person must repent, and then after they repent they believe, and then after they believe they receive Baptism, and then after they receive Baptism they receive the Holy Spirit. That’s simply not present in Scripture. And this has never been a normative Christian perspective at anytime in the history of the Christian Church. Instead this appears to be an idea born out of a modern theological system.

Would you agree or disagree that 1 John 1:9, in calling us to confess our sins, is a call to repentance? Does repentance feature at all in your understanding of Christian life and discipleship? Not as some entrance-fee we pay to join the club, but as the ordinary call to us to take up our cross and follow Jesus. I’m just curious where your mind is on this subject.

Now about your Cornelius point: yes, he received the Holy Ghost before baptism—and then Peter still commanded them to be baptized in Jesus’ name (Acts 10:48). That wasn’t a soft suggestion. It wasn’t symbolic filler. It was essential, because baptism isn’t an accessory to grace—it’s part of the delivery system. It’s the burial into Christ’s death (Romans 6:3-4). It’s putting on Christ (Galatians 3:27). Not a side dish—the meal.

No disagreement from me. But this isn’t a rebuttal to anything I’ve said, merely an affirmation of things I’ve already said: Baptism is Means of Grace. There is forgiveness of sins here, the promise of the Holy Spirit is here in Baptism.

And the idea that the Spirit is “promised” in baptism but can just fall whenever it wants? Sure, God is sovereign—but God is not sloppy. The apostolic pattern is clear: repentance, water baptism in Jesus’ name, and receiving the Holy Ghost with power and evidence (Acts 2:38; 8:15-17; 19:1-6). The exception of Cornelius doesn’t erase the norm—it confirms it by showing the Gentiles were also subject to it.

You say you see a pattern, I claim to see God working through Means of Word and Sacrament. I do have a couple questions, about this pattern. Where do we see the disciples who received John’s baptism in Acts 19 “repent”? Instead Paul tells them that their knowledge is deficient–they appear to have been followers of John the Baptist, they needed the fuller knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah and Lord–upon hearing this they received Christian Baptism. But we don’t see anything about them, they, themselves repenting in order to become Christians. In the same vein in Acts 8 we have St. Philip encountering the Ethiopian eunuch, and we do not see the eunuch “repenting”, instead Philip explains Isaiah 53 as being about the promised Messiah, about Jesus, and then the eunuch exclaims upon the sight of water the desire to be baptized. So, Philip administers baptism. Philip doesn’t say, “Whoa buddy, don’t get too excited, first things first, you need to repent, and then you need to do this, etc” No. Philip has the eunuch baptized.

What we have isn’t a “pattern” with just one exception, what we have is God working through the Means of Word and Sacrament. The Gospel is proclaimed, people believe; people hear the Gospel and they are baptized, people are baptized and the Spirit is there. It’s not a sequence of doing things, it’s panoply of grace.

Word and Sacrament? Yes. But don’t decouple them from the Acts 2 spine of New Testament salvation. This isn’t about climbing up—it’s about being obedient to how God came down, through water, Spirit, and blood.

So let’s not theologize our way around obedience. Let’s not philosophize repentance into abstraction. And let’s not treat the apostolic pattern like a buffet. God’s grace is free—but the new birth still costs you your old life.

You’re talking about obedience, that’s a discussion about Law. I’m talking about Grace. The Gospel. Grace isn’t law, grace isn’t about obedience–grace is about who God is, and what God does for the unworthy. Obedience is what I can’t do because of sin, and can only do because, I can do all things in Christ who strengthens me. As the Lord Himself taught concerning the rich young ruler who went away sad, and the disciples asked, “How then can anyone be saved?” And the Lord said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Grace is what forms the foundation of a life of new obedience as a disciple of Jesus. It is not, however, obedience that gets us through the door. Jesus is the Door. And He is also the Way through the Door, and what He has done gets us through. The work is done, it is accomplished, τετέλεσται.

84

Now before I head off to work, I did want to pose a question. I am curious if when you bring up baptism in Jesus’ name you are meaning it in the biblical sense–Christ instituted baptism, and so Christian Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is by the word, power, and authority of Jesus–or if you mean it in a “formulaic” sense, i.e. the non-Trinitarian view held by proponents of so-called “Oneness” doctrine that “Jesus” is the singular name of the Godhead as first (and wrongly) taught by R.E. McAlister?

That is to say, I want to know if I am dealing with Oneness theology, or merely a disagreement among orthodox Christians who agree on the basic fundamentals of Nicene orthodoxy.

1 Like
85

Peace to all,

St. Paul is getting at when he writes, “Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds”

Peace alwats,
Stephen

86

Your observation about Peter addressing a Jewish audience in Acts 2 is correct—but that does not limit the scope or authority of his response. The fact that Peter was speaking to Jews on the Day of Pentecost does not make his command any less universal, because Peter was speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, giving the inaugural response to the very first time the gospel was preached after the resurrection and ascension of Christ. When the crowd was “pricked in their heart” and asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter responded not with a suggestion tailored only to Jews, but with God’s revealed answer to all humanity: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). He didn’t say, “This is just for you who handed Christ over.” In fact, he immediately expanded the promise beyond that audience: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). That includes Gentiles, future generations, and anyone whom God draws.

The narrative of Acts confirms this pattern again and again. In Acts 10, Gentiles received the Holy Ghost and were commanded to be baptized in the name of the Lord. In Acts 19, disciples who had only received John’s baptism were re-baptized in Jesus’ name and received the Holy Ghost. So, while Peter was sent primarily to the Jews, the gospel he preached in Acts 2:38 is the consistent New Testament response for both Jew and Gentile.

Peter wasn’t just “meeting people where they were”—he was revealing where they needed to go. This wasn’t cultural accommodation; it was divine instruction. Acts 2:38 is not a localized message to a specific group—it is the apostolic pattern of salvation, rooted in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and confirmed throughout the entire book of Acts.

You’ve raised an important point by referencing Acts 10:44–48, and it’s true—this passage shows that Cornelius and his household received the Holy Ghost before water baptism. But rather than disproving the apostolic pattern found in Acts 2:38, this moment confirms and reinforces it. What happened in Acts 10 was unique because it marked the first time the gospel was poured out on Gentiles, and God sovereignly demonstrated that salvation was not restricted to the Jews by giving them the Holy Ghost just as He had given it to the Jewish believers at Pentecost. Peter even said, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost just as we have?” (v.47), showing that the order of receiving the Spirit and being baptized may differ, but both are still essential parts of the same salvation experience. That’s why Peter didn’t leave them in their spiritual state after they received the Spirit—he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (v.48).

This demonstrates that God can work in various ways, but He never bypasses obedience to the gospel message. In Acts 2, the people repented and were baptized, and then received the Holy Ghost. In Acts 10, they received the Holy Ghost first, which confirmed their acceptance by God, and were then commanded to be baptized. In both cases, the full pattern—repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name, and receiving the Holy Ghost—is honored. This isn’t about rigid sequencing; it’s about complete obedience. Peter’s command shows that baptism is not optional or symbolic—it is part of the apostolic mandate for all who believe.

As for the idea that God can save by any method He chooses—while that’s true in principle, the question is not what God can do but what He has revealed. He has chosen to save through the gospel, and the gospel includes response: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), “Repent and be baptized… and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). God is indeed the initiator, and we are the respondents—but the way we respond matters. That’s why even Cornelius, a devout man of prayer and charity, was told to send for Peter, “who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:14).

And yes, Jeremiah 29:13 is a beautiful truth—we seek, but only because He first draws us (John 6:44). And when we seek with all our hearts, He will indeed lead us into truth and obedience—and that obedience will always align with the example of Jesus and the message of His apostles.

Your humility and sincere pursuit of truth are evident, and you’ve raised some important scriptural insights. It is absolutely true that God sees the heart, and He does deal with people according to their knowledge and understanding (Luke 12:47–48). However, the beauty of God’s mercy doesn’t negate the clarity of His revealed will. While we are not God and cannot judge the final state of another’s soul, we can and must preach what God has clearly revealed through His Word, and His Word consistently upholds water baptism—not as a mere symbol, but as a commanded act of faith and obedience (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3–4).

Yes, Galatians 5:6 teaches that “faith working through love” is what avails in Christ, but true biblical faith is never passive—it always results in obedient action. Hebrews 11 is filled with examples of people whose faith was credited to them because they obeyed. In Romans 2, Paul’s argument about uncircumcised Gentiles doing what the Law requires affirms this: God honors faith expressed in obedient response to His will, not in ritual alone. In the same way, baptism—like circumcision—becomes void only when it is disconnected from genuine commitment and faith (Romans 2:25). But that doesn’t diminish its importance; it emphasizes that the act itself must be done in faith, not reduced to a formality.

Romans 14:4 is an important reminder that judgment belongs to God, and He is indeed able to make His servants stand. But Romans 14 is addressing disputable matters, like eating meat or observing certain days—not foundational elements of the gospel. Baptism, by contrast, is not treated in Scripture as optional or secondary—it is consistently preached and practiced as part of entering into covenant with Christ (Acts 8:12, 16; 10:48; 19:5). Confusion around baptism is understandable—especially with the wide variety of teachings today—but that confusion is why we must return to the unchanging pattern of Scripture, not rely on how symbolic it may feel to us or others.

So yes, God knows how to deal justly with every individual, but we are not called to speculate on His exceptions—we are called to obey His instructions. He lovingly calls us not to confusion, but to clarity (1 Corinthians 14:33), and His Word offers that clarity: repent, be baptized in Jesus’ name, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. That’s not human legalism—it’s divine invitation.

87

Your caution against forming rigid doctrines from isolated texts is understandable, and it’s true that we must interpret Scripture carefully and in context. However, when it comes to salvation, we are not forming doctrine from just one passage, but from a consistent and repeated pattern throughout the entire New Testament, especially the Book of Acts, where the apostles—under the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit—demonstrated and taught how people are to enter into the New Covenant. Acts 2:38 is not a solitary verse; it is the first presentation of the full gospel after Christ’s ascension, and it is echoed repeatedly: repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost are seen in Acts 8, 10, 19, and 22. God may be infinite in wisdom, but He is not vague in instruction. He has chosen to work through the preaching of the Word and obedient response to the gospel (Romans 10:14–17).

Yes, John 21:25 tells us that Jesus did many things not written in the Bible—but this doesn’t mean the written Word is incomplete or insufficient. On the contrary, Scripture is God-breathed and fully sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16–17). If we believe God has preserved His Word, then we must also believe He included everything essential for salvation and godly living.

Regarding Peter’s question in Acts 10:47, it’s important to note that he wasn’t asking whether the Gentiles should be received as brothers instead of being baptized. In fact, he was recognizing that since they had received the same Holy Ghost, there was no reason to withhold water baptism. The immediate result was that “he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48). That’s not about cultural inclusion alone—it’s about completing the salvation experience. The Spirit fell upon them, confirming God’s acceptance, and Peter’s response was to ensure they followed through with baptism—not as an optional commitment ceremony, but as a commanded act of faith.

In the end, the idea of being “born from above” (John 3:3–5) is not left undefined. Jesus explained that it involves being “born of water and of the Spirit.” The apostles understood this to include water baptism in Jesus’ name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. God is not limited by human understanding, but He has chosen to reveal His will through His Word—and we honor Him best when we humbly receive and obey it.

88

Appreciate the question, TheologyNerd, and I’ll give it to you plain: I mean baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, exactly as the apostles preached it, practiced it, and commanded it—not in a modalistic, anti-Trinitarian sense, but as the explicit and authoritative name revealed by the Father, embodied in the Son, and applied by the Holy Ghost.

This isn’t some R.E. McAlister novelty act. It’s Acts 2:38. It’s Acts 8:16. It’s Acts 10:48. It’s Acts 19:5. It’s Romans 6:3. It’s Galatians 3:27. The name invoked in baptism wasn’t a generic title—it was Jesus, the name above every name (Phil. 2:9-11), the singular name that encompasses the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). You show me one apostolic baptism where the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” were spoken as a formula—I’ll wait.

Jesus said baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19). That verse is not a script—it’s a revelation. The apostles understood that the name He was referring to was His own. Not because they rejected the Trinity, but because they knew the name of the triune God had been revealed in Christ. John 5:43, John 14:26, Matthew 1:21—it’s all there. The Father sent Him in His own name, the Spirit comes in His name, and the Son bears that name: Jesus.

So no—I’m not slinging some modalistic confusion. I’m standing with Peter, Paul, and every apostolic preacher who knew that invoking the name of Jesus in baptism wasn’t about semantics—it was about covenant identity, spiritual authority, and obedience to divine revelation.

This isn’t a “formula.” It’s faith-filled obedience to the name that saves (Acts 4:12).

Not Oneness. Not tradition. Just Scripture, sharp and undiluted.

89

I appreciate your desire to safeguard the doctrine of salvation by grace alone—and indeed, we must never suggest that we can earn our salvation. But it’s critical to distinguish between meritorious works and obedient faith. The Bible consistently teaches that salvation is a gift, not something we could ever deserve or work for (Ephesians 2:8–9). However, that same passage continues, “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (v.10). Faith that saves is not passive; it is obedient, living, and responsive (James 2:17–24). When we act in faith—repent, get baptized, call on the name of the Lord—we are not earning salvation, we are receiving it on God’s terms.

Consider Naaman in 2 Kings 5. When Elisha told him to dip in the Jordan River to be healed, Naaman didn’t earn his healing by washing; he was simply obeying the prophet’s word in faith, and God honored that obedience. Likewise, when Peter preached in Acts 2:38, he wasn’t presenting a system of merit—he was declaring how people should respond to the gospel. Repentance and baptism are not wages for a good performance; they are the biblical expressions of saving faith. Even Abraham, whom Paul elevates as the model of justification by faith (Romans 4), expressed that faith by obedience—he left his homeland, he offered Isaac, he acted.

So no, you are not misunderstanding in terms of sequence: yes, faith acts. But equating obedience with merit misunderstands the nature of biblical faith. Faith is not mere mental assent—it is trust that moves. God owes us nothing, but He honors faith that obeys. That’s not legalism; it’s grace transforming the heart into action. To reduce all human response to “merit” is to deny the very relationship God seeks with us: not mechanical transactions, but surrendered hearts responding to His love and truth.

Your analogy is heartfelt and compelling, and I wholeheartedly agree that Jesus Christ is both the Author and Finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2), and that His death and resurrection are not partial or incomplete. When I said His death and resurrection “provide the basis for salvation,” I did not mean to imply the work was unfinished in its power or sufficiency—only that God, in His sovereignty, has ordained that this finished work must be received by obedient faith. It’s not that we are building the house; rather, Christ has built it in totality—but He still calls us to enter into it. He doesn’t drag us through the door—we must respond to His invitation. That response is not “purchasing materials” or constructing salvation—it is the humble act of faith expressed through repentance, baptism in His name, and receiving the Holy Ghost, just as He and His apostles taught (Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3–4, John 3:5).

Your analogy of the homeless person beautifully expresses our spiritual poverty and total dependence on divine grace. But imagine that the house is fully built, the door is open, the table is set—and Jesus stands at the entrance and says, “Come in.” If I stay outside, I cannot say that I’ve accepted the gift, no matter how beautifully it’s been prepared. Walking through that door isn’t me building anything—it’s me trusting and obeying the One who made a way. When Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), or when Peter declared, “Repent and be baptized… for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), they were not suggesting we must “complete” what Christ failed to finish—they were revealing the God-ordained response to the finished work. Faith without obedience is like standing outside the house and admiring it, but never going in.

So yes—Jesus does all the saving, and we can add nothing to His sacrifice. But the means by which we receive that salvation has always involved responding to the call of God in obedience, not to merit, but to receive. That’s not legalism—it’s the gospel rightly understood.

90

To be plain, when Jesus says “in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit” He means what He said.

No where in Scripture do we have a record of the exact way a person is baptized, we don’t have a record of Peter or Paul or anyone saying “I baptize you in the name of …”

When I read “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” I think the simple undiluted biblical meaning is this: This is baptism done by the authority of Jesus Christ. “In the name of” in this sense is “by the authority of”; it is specifically a way of demarcating Christian baptism from other “baptisms”, such as that of John the Baptist, or the ritual washings common in Judaism. This is a specifically Christian baptism, it is the baptism which Jesus Christ Himself institutes and commends to His Church in the Great Commission.

The New Testament itself does not provide us with a record of anyone saying “I baptize you in the name of…” However when we look at documented Christian history, we do in fact see see descriptions and prescriptions of how to baptize someone. And what we find, over and over and over again, is that Christian baptism is to be done "in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I suspect that you may not regard non-biblical Christian sources to be important or relevant. However, I do think they are relevant. I am not a “Bible only” Christian. I subscribe to the historic Lutheran position of Sola Scriptura; but there is a sizeable gulf between Sola Scriptura and “Bible only”–that could be an interesting side conversation to have sometime in another discussion.

But this is already a side-discussion to what the topic of this thread is about. This is about being born again and salvation; baptism has arisen as part of that.

I simply wanted to understand whether you and I are in agreement on the basic fundamentals of Nicene orthodoxy.

To that end “Jesus” is the name of the Eternal and Divine Person of the Son, the name He was given in His Incarnation. When I call upon the name of Jesus, I am not speaking about Jesus’ Father, nor am I speaking about the Holy Spirit, I’m talking about Jesus. I’m talking about the God-Man who was born of the Virgin Mary and who died for my sins. I’m talking about the Eternal Son of the Father, not the Father of the Son. Perhaps this, too, is a subject that could be discussed in somewhere else.

As it stands to the matter of our salvation and new birth, I continue to maintain what I believe to be the rather plain and obvious meaning of Scripture: that God meets us through the gracious means of His Word and Sacraments to bring us into communion with Himself; by giving us faith, and declaring us righteous for Christ’s sake. And that, therefore, we can trust in our baptism not because baptism saves ex opere operato; but because in the seemingly mundane and ordinary thing of water, we find God’s word, His promise, namely, that our sins are forgiven, we died and were buried and raised together with Jesus. Because it’s all about grace.

Obedience is about walking the walk; but as it pertains to how we are reconciled to God, well that was done and finished on Mt. Calvary–and what happened there is now ours, as pure gift, through Word and Sacrament; as we receive this through faith alone by grace alone.

91

So yes—Jesus does all the saving, and we can add nothing to His sacrifice. But the means by which we receive that salvation has always involved responding to the call of God in obedience , not to merit, but to receive. That’s not legalism—it’s the gospel rightly understood.

There are a lot of ways I could respond here. Instead, I would like to pose a question:

How does a person believe? I believe this is the crux of the issue. It’s a question I posed earlier in my posts here: From whence comes faith?

92

That’s an excellent and foundational question—from whence comes faith? Scripture gives us a clear and beautiful answer: faith is both a gift from God and a response to His revealed Word. Romans 10:17 declares, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” In other words, faith arises when the Word of God is preached, heard, and received into the heart that has been softened by the Spirit. God is indeed the initiator—He draws us (John 6:44), convicts us (John 16:8), and illuminates our understanding (2 Corinthians 4:6). Yet, in His sovereignty, He does not force belief—He enables it, and we are called to respond. This is not a synergistic work where we add to salvation; it is a grace-enabled response where the heart, awakened by truth, says yes to God’s invitation.

Ephesians 2:8–9 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith, and “that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” This does not mean that faith is robotic or imposed—it means that apart from God’s grace drawing us, we would never believe. But once drawn, we are not passive recipients—we are called to believe, to repent, to obey (Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30). God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are not in contradiction—they work in harmony. Faith is born in the soil of God’s Word, cultivated by the Spirit, and responded to by a willing heart. So, faith comes from God, but it is also expressed by us—and when it is expressed through obedience, it is alive and saving.

93

Your point about authority is well taken—when Scripture speaks of doing something “in the name of,” it certainly implies by the authority of the one named. However, when it comes to baptism, the New Testament is not silent about the actual wording used—it consistently records that believers were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). This isn’t merely a reference to general authority; it reflects the actual invocation of the name. The phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” in these passages is not symbolic or explanatory—it is prescriptive. Peter, Paul, and the early Church didn’t just baptize with Jesus’ authority—they invoked His actual name, fulfilling the command of Matthew 28:19 in revelation and practice.

Matthew 28:19 instructs believers to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” That verse uses “name” in the singular, not plural, pointing us to a single revealed name that embodies the fullness of the Godhead—and that name is Jesus (Colossians 2:9; John 5:43; John 14:26). The apostles, who heard Jesus speak Matthew 28:19 firsthand, went out and consistently baptized in the name of Jesus, not as a contradiction, but as a fulfillment—because Jesus is the name of the Father (John 10:30), the Son (Matthew 1:21), and the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

As for early Christian history, it’s true that formulas began to shift in later centuries, particularly after the 2nd century. But the Book of Acts offers the clearest apostolic precedent, and the epistles never correct it. The early Church didn’t treat baptismal wording as a flexible formula—they demonstrated that the name of Jesus was essential, because “neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12). So when we baptize in Jesus’ name today, we are not ignoring Matthew 28:19—we are obeying it in the full light of New Testament revelation.

You’re right that this thread is centered on being born again and salvation, and baptism naturally comes into the conversation because it is repeatedly connected in Scripture to both concepts. As for your note on Sola Scriptura versus “Bible only,” I do appreciate the distinction you’re making. The historic Protestant position affirms that Scripture is the sole infallible authority, while tradition, creeds, and church history can hold value when they align with Scripture. However, when it comes to foundational doctrines like salvation and the new birth, Scripture must remain the final and ultimate authority. And the biblical witness—from Jesus’ words in John 3:5 to Peter’s command in Acts 2:38—clearly presents water baptism as more than a side issue; it is an integral part of entering into the New Covenant life.

The writings of church fathers or early Christian practices can give helpful insight, but they cannot override the plain teaching of the inspired Word. When the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, consistently baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and when they tied baptism to remission of sins, burial with Christ, and putting on Christ, we must take that seriously (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3–4; Galatians 3:27). So while I value historical perspectives, I return always to the question: What did the apostles do and teach in the earliest, Spirit-led days of the Church? If our goal is apostolic Christianity, then their example must shape our understanding of being born again—repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name, and receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).

I appreciate your desire for clarity, and I’ll be equally direct: I do not affirm the Nicene Creed as the foundation of Christian orthodoxy, because I do not believe it was born of God-breathed inspiration, but rather shaped by centuries of theological speculation heavily influenced by pagan philosophy and human reasoning. While the intentions of the council may have been to protect Christian doctrine, the resulting formulations—particularly the development of the Trinity—departed from the clear monotheism of Scripture and the apostolic message of the early Church. I hold to the authority of Scripture alone as the final and inspired rule of faith, and I seek to follow the teachings and practices of Jesus and His apostles as recorded in the New Testament. The creeds of men, however ancient or well-meaning, cannot supersede the revealed Word of God. Orthodoxy, in its truest form, is not measured by post-biblical councils but by faithfulness to the name, identity, and gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by the apostles.

I understand your perspective, but I respectfully disagree with the idea that “Jesus” is the name of only one divine person within a triune Godhead. Scripture reveals that the name “Jesus” is not limited to the Son as a separate person—it is the revealed name of the one true God manifested in flesh. Isaiah 9:6 calls the Son “The everlasting Father,” and in John 14:9, Jesus said, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” Colossians 2:9 declares that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, not just one-third. The name “Jesus” carries the fullness of God’s identity, because it is through that name that God made Himself known in redemption (John 17:6; Philippians 2:9–11).

When I call on the name of Jesus, I’m not distinguishing between persons—I am calling upon the one Lord who is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Ghost in indwelling power. There is no division in God’s essence; the distinctions are in His manifestations, not in separate centers of divine consciousness. Jesus is not merely the name of the second person—it is the supreme name that embodies the fullness of who God is. That’s why baptism was done in His name, demons are cast out in His name, and salvation is found in no other name (Acts 4:12). The revelation of Jesus is the revelation of the invisible God made visible (John 1:18), and in Him we see the totality of God’s nature—not just a part.

Your emphasis on grace is vital and appreciated—indeed, salvation is entirely a work of God’s mercy, accomplished through the finished work of Christ on Calvary. But while the cross is the foundation, Scripture teaches that our personal reconciliation with God involves a response of obedient faith to that finished work. The grace of God is not opposed to action—it is opposed to earning. The New Testament does not present baptism as merely symbolic or sacramental in an abstract sense, but as a God-ordained means by which we are buried with Christ, raised with Him, and have our sins washed away (Romans 6:3–4; Acts 22:16; Colossians 2:12). Peter didn’t point to baptism as a visual aid—he declared in 1 Peter 3:21, “baptism doth also now save us,” not because of the water itself, but because it is the response of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When Scripture says we are saved “by grace through faith” (Ephesians 2:8), that faith is never presented as passive or disconnected from obedience. Hebrews 5:9 plainly says that Christ is the author of eternal salvation “unto all them that obey him.” That obedience does not nullify grace—it validates that grace has been received. Baptism in Jesus’ name is not a ritual of ex opere operato, nor is it a work of human merit. It is the divinely appointed moment of covenantal entry—where the repentant believer is clothed with Christ (Galatians 3:27), and calls upon His name (Acts 22:16), receiving by faith what Calvary has made possible.

The Word and the Sacraments are not magical—they are effective when received in obedient faith. And Scripture doesn’t sever grace from baptism; it shows how grace is received through faith-filled acts like repentance and baptism. It’s not grace or obedience—it’s grace that empowers obedience, and obedience that responds to grace. That’s the pattern laid out by Jesus and His apostles, and that’s what it means to be truly born again.

94

Excellent question @TheologyNerd

Romans 10:17
ἄρα ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ
“So then, faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” I believe this is key.

πίστις (pistis) = trust, belief, conviction
ἐξ ἀκοῆς (ex akoēs) = out of hearing; source or origin
διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ = through the word about Christ

Faith arises in response to divine truth heard and understood. It is neither innate nor supernaturally implanted without one’s awareness. The grammar clearly presents faith as resultant, not predetermined.

Acts 17:4
καί τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπείσθησαν…
“And some of them were persuaded…”
ἐπείσθησαν (epeisthēsan) = aorist passive of πείθω (to persuade)

This shows people are persuaded by truth, not pre-programmed for belief

Persuasion, not coercion, is the biblical pattern. The passive voice reflects their openness to divine reasoning—they were not made to believe, but chose to accept what convinced them.

John 1:9
Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον…
“The true Light, who enlightens every man, was coming into the world.”

φωτίζει (phōtizei) = He is enlightening (present active indicative)
πάντα ἄνθρωπον = every man

This light is universal. The text affirms divine initiative but not selective grace. Human beings, each one, are illuminated and thus responsible for whether they reject or receive the Light (John 3:19).

John 3:16
ὥστε πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται
“So that everyone believing in Him should not perish…”

ὁ πιστεύων (ho pisteuōn) = the one who is believing (present active participle)

Belief is expressed in present active, showing an ongoing, conscious act. It is not something that happens to a person passively, but something they do in response to revealed truth.

Romans 10:10
καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην…
“For with the heart one believes unto righteousness…”

πιστεύεται (pisteuetai) = it is believed (present passive)
Yet the context emphasizes voluntary confession and reception (vv. 9–13)

The “heart” here refers to the inner being. Belief is not an automatic reaction…it is a moral and spiritual response that results in right standing with God.

James 2:19
καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν
“Even the demons believe—and shudder.”

πιστεύουσιν (pisteuousin) = they believe (present active)
Belief without surrender or love does not save

This highlights that not all belief is salvific. The act of believing must include trust, not mere intellectual assent.

Early Church Witness

Justin Martyr (First Apology, Ch. 43):

“God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. If the word of God foretells that some shall be punished, it is because it foreknew they would be unchangeably wicked–not because God made them so.”

Faith, according to Justin, is a moral capacity available to all men. It comes not by infusion but by freedom responding to divine initiative.

Faith does not descend from heaven as an involuntary deposit.
Faith comes from hearing (Romans 10:17), from being persuaded (Acts 17:4), from receiving the light that enlightens every man (John 1:9).
A person believes because they respond to truth with the heart, not because they were unable to do otherwise.

No verse in Scripture portrays belief as an act God performs on behalf of the sinner.
Every call to believe (e.g., Mark 1:15; Acts 16:31; John 20:31) presumes a human capacity to do so.

Johann.

95

However, when it comes to baptism, the New Testament is not silent about the actual wording used—it consistently records that believers were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). This isn’t merely a reference to general authority; it reflects the actual invocation of the name . The phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” in these passages is not symbolic or explanatory—it is prescriptive. Peter, Paul, and the early Church didn’t just baptize with Jesus’ authority—they invoked His actual name , fulfilling the command of Matthew 28:19 in revelation and practice.

Except the command in Matthew 28:19 is to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not “in the name of Jesus”. Which is why the earliest recorded prescriptions and descriptions of formal baptismal practices in Christianity consistently have baptism being done “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is the singular name of the Triune God.

What we don’t see, in the Acts of the Apostles, is anyone prescribing or any description of a formal baptismal practice in which only Jesus’ name is invoked. There is no “I baptize you in the name of Jesus” in Scripture. There is also no “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit” in Scripture either. Scripture is, itself, entirely silent on formal baptismal practice. Given that “in the name of Jesus” means by His authority in the same way Jesus’ name means His authority when the Apostles healed the crippled man; and given the preponderance of evidence of ancient Christian practice where “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is given in a prescriptive manner (including the very word and command of Christ Himself to His Church in Matthew 28:19), it would seem that all evidence points to Apostolic practice as following Christ’s command verbatim, and that this Apostolic practice was prescriptive in the earliest Christian communities, and we have evidence of this in the historic record.

Matthew 28:19 instructs believers to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” That verse uses “name” in the singular, not plural, pointing us to a single revealed name that embodies the fullness of the Godhead—and that name is Jesus (Colossians 2:9; John 5:43; John 14:26). The apostles, who heard Jesus speak Matthew 28:19 firsthand, went out and consistently baptized in the name of Jesus , not as a contradiction, but as a fulfillment—because Jesus is the name of the Father (John 10:30), the Son (Matthew 1:21), and the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

The singular name of Matthew 28:19 is “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, not “Jesus”. Jesus is the name of the Divine and Incarnate Son. In no way whatsoever does Scripture ever present “Jesus” as the name of the Father or the Spirit. When Jesus, the God-Man, addresses His Father He calls Him Father. When Jesus says that He and His Father will send another Comforter, He calls that Comforter–distinct from both Himself and His Father–the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, etc.

There are Three Divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And it is in this name of the Triune God that Jesus’ Church baptizes, and this is by His authority, and thus in His name. So to be baptized in the name of Jesus is to be baptized with the baptism Jesus instituted, which is “in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.

As for early Christian history, it’s true that formulas began to shift in later centuries, particularly after the 2nd century.

Well, no. Formulas did not begin to shift in later centuries. The evidence we have of the Triune Name being used in formal baptismal practice can be found in the 1st and 2nd centuries. The oldest and clearest example is probably the Didache, written sometime between 60-120 AD, firmly within the apostolic period or, if one prefers a later dating, within living memory of the apostolic period.

I do not affirm the Nicene Creed as the foundation of Christian orthodoxy ,

I appreciate the honesty. However, this means that I doubt we will have much that is meaningful to discuss. If you and I cannot even agree on who Jesus is, then all other issues become moot.

1 Like
96

There’s a lot here I don’t agree with– brother @The_Omega

In Response to Claims that Baptism Should Only Be Done ‘in the Name of Jesus’:

If one argues that Christian baptism must only be performed with the spoken phrase “in the name of Jesus” because Acts records baptisms in that form, I would respectfully point out that Scripture nowhere provides a verbatim spoken formula by the baptizer in those passages. The text consistently describes the action rather than prescribe liturgical words.

Acts 2:38 says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ,” using the Greek phrase ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which indicates the grounds or authority upon which the baptism is performed. This is a prepositional phrase describing by whose authority the baptism is administered, not a liturgical prescription for exact words to say aloud during the rite.

Acts 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5 similarly describe believers being baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” But again, we find narrative description, not a liturgical rubric.

If one were to argue that Acts should override Matthew 28:19, we are then faced with the difficulty of disregarding Christ’s own direct command, which remains the only instance in the New Testament where He instructs His followers precisely how to baptize: “Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Greek: βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα…).

This instruction is neither replaced nor corrected by the later actions of the Apostles. Rather, the Apostles’ practice in Acts assumes the authority of Christ and refers to His lordship, not to a change in the wording He gave.

The early Church understood this. The Didache, written as early as the first century, instructs Christians: “Baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7.1). Tertullian writes similarly in On Baptism chapter 13, affirming the Trinitarian formula as the standard. These are not late innovations, but consistent echoes of the dominical command in Matthew.

Other words–

Acts records the authority of the baptism, not the spoken formula.

Matthew 28:19 contains the only explicit command from Christ concerning baptismal wording.

Early Christian writings reflect obedience to Christ’s command, not a replacement of it.

There is no contradiction–rather, there is complementary testimony: Acts describes the power behind baptism, while Matthew records the form.

1 Like
97

–and here, I cannot agree with you @The_Omega

While I appreciate the conviction and the appeal to Scripture, the claim that “Jesus” is the exclusive name of the one undivided divine person, rather than the incarnate Son of the Trinity, does not hold under the weight of biblical usage, context, and the full witness of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

Isa 9:6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
Isa 9:7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgement and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.
Brenton

Isa 9:6 For a child was born to us; a son was given to us, of whom the sovereignty became upon his shoulder; and [is called his name], [of great counsel Messenger], wonderful, counselor, [God mighty], potentate, ruler of peace, father of the [about to be eon]. For I will bring peace upon the rulers, and his health.
ABP
Everlasting Father should be read as Father “of future”–as here-

Isa 9:6 For unto us a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty El, The Prince of Peace, The one who Fathered Everlasting life.

Isaiah 9:6, while calling the promised child “Everlasting Father,” does so in the context of Hebraic titular conventions, not ontological definitions. The Hebrew phrase אֲבִי עַד (’Avi ‘ad) can be idiomatically understood as “Father of Eternity,” indicating originator or possessor of eternal dominion, not equivalence or identity with the person of the Father in the Godhead. Ancient Jewish and early Christian interpreters understood these titles as descriptive of royal prerogative and divine function, not as a merger of persons within the Godhead. Even Oneness theologian David K. Bernard concedes that these names describe Jesus’ roles, not the persons of the Trinity.

John 14:9 must also be read contextually. When Jesus says, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” He is not denying personal distinction but affirming perfect representational revelation. In verse 10, He explains that “the Father who dwells in Me does His works.” The Greek verb μένει (menei, “remains”) expresses indwelling, not identity. This aligns with earlier verses in the Gospel, such as John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” Here, the Son exegetes the Father, being distinct in person yet one in essence.

Colossians 2:9 indeed declares, “For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” However, this statement affirms that Christ is fully divine—not that He is the entirety of the Godhead exhaustively. The Greek word for “Godhead” (θεότης) indicates divine nature, and πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα (pan to plērōma, “all the fullness”) signifies that the Son lacks nothing of deity in Himself. This does not collapse Father, Son, and Spirit into one person. Paul’s theology consistently maintains Christ’s distinct personal identity (cf. Colossians 3:1, Romans 8:34), even while affirming His full deity.

John 17:6 is not evidence that “Jesus” is the one name of the one divine person but rather shows the Son manifesting the Father’s name to the disciples. The phrase ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα (“I have revealed Your name”) refers to manifesting the character, authority, and will of the Father—not to replacing His distinct personal identity. Jesus also says in verse 3, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” This verse maintains relational distinction even while affirming divine unity.

Philippians 2:9–11 states that the name “Jesus” is exalted above every name, and that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. This is a citation of Isaiah 45:23, which Yahweh originally spoke. Paul applies it to Jesus precisely because the Father has given the name to the Son (v. 9), not because Jesus as Son is Himself the Father. The Greek verb ἐχαρίσατο (echarisato, “has graciously given”) proves that the exaltation and the name are bestowed by the Father, again confirming distinction in person.

The totality of biblical revelation presents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as coequal in essence and glory, but distinct in person and function. The name “Jesus” refers to the incarnate Son, Yeshua, meaning “Yahweh saves,” and in Him, the Godhead is fully revealed and active. Yet He prays to the Father (John 17), sends the Spirit (John 16:7), and is declared both by the Father and by apostolic witness as the obedient Son (Matthew 3:17; Hebrews 5:8).

To assert that “Jesus” is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit conflates roles and functions and ignores the plain grammatical and narrative distinctions present throughout the New Testament. The Apostolic witness honors the unity of God’s being without reducing Him to a single monadic person.

God bless.

Johann.

98

You’re right about one thing, friend—Jesus did mean what He said. But the question is: Did we actually hear Him? Because He said “in the name,” not names, and the apostles didn’t stand around scratching their heads trying to decode it—they obeyed it, and they used the name. Every baptism recorded in Scripture—without exception—is done in the name of Jesus Christ. That’s not theological window dressing. That’s divine precision.

You say “in the name of” means “by the authority of.” Sure. But let’s not pretend biblical “authority” is just about intent or heavenly paperwork. In Scripture, authority and name are inseparable. The name is the legal seal, the covenant claim. You didn’t just invoke a vague title; you called the name that held the power.

You’re right that the Bible doesn’t give us a word-for-word baptismal liturgy. But it gives us something better: the consistent pattern. Acts 2:38. Acts 8:16. Acts 10:48. Acts 19:5. Romans 6:3. Galatians 3:27. No ambiguity. No confusion. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ wasn’t a poetic flourish—it was the apostolic norm. And it wasn’t to distinguish Christian baptism from John’s—Paul already did that in Acts 19 by re-baptizing disciples in Jesus’ name. That’s not nuance. That’s command.

Now, regarding the Church Fathers and history—I respect the value of tradition. But tradition doesn’t get to contradict revelation. Tertullian and Didache don’t override Peter and Paul. When Scripture gives us a crystal-clear pattern, we don’t get to file it under “optional rites” because later ecclesiastical trends felt differently. That’s not Sola Scriptura. That’s Sola Seminar.

As for the name “Jesus”—you say when you call on Jesus, you’re not referring to the Father or the Spirit. I’d gently push back. John 5:43: “I am come in My Father’s name.” John 14:26: “The Holy Spirit… whom the Father will send in My name.” Jesus is the redemptive name revealed to humanity—the name that reveals the fullness of the Godhead (Col. 2:9). The name of the Father, Son, and Spirit is Jesus—not because they’re the same person, but because He is the name by which we are saved (Acts 4:12).

And no, this isn’t a denial of Nicene orthodoxy. I fully affirm the triune nature of God. But when it comes to baptism, I’m not reaching for the creed—I’m reaching for the upper room at Pentecost. That’s where this was settled.

Obedience doesn’t compete with grace—it walks hand in hand with it. The cross finished the work, but baptism is where we step into it. Not because water saves on its own, but because faith obeys, and God meets us in the very means He ordained.

So yes—it’s about grace. But it’s also about doing what the grace-giver said, not just feeling warm about it.

Call it what you want. I call it biblical. I call it apostolic.
I call it Jesus’ name baptism.

99

I would agree with you that faith is not mere mental assent, nor would I argue that faith is even primarily mental assent. St. James reminds us that “even the demons believe, and tremble”

But neither do I believe that faith is intra nos, on the contrary: faith is extra nos, it comes from outside of ourselves–it is something God gives, works, and strengthens. Faith is God’s work, not our own. It is precisely because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word (Romans 10:17) that we cannot attribute faith to ourselves, but rather “it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). Further we read that it is not by our own will, but God’s will, that we have been born anew (John 1:13).

It is not automatic or robotic; but it is a supernatural working of the Holy Spirit to create in us what did not exist before: faith. Apart from the Holy Spirit, I cannot believe.

Now, as said already, I do not regard faith as mere nor primarily as mental assent; but to use the words of Martin Luther, “a bold trust in God’s grace”. That’s something the demons certainly do not (and cannot) have. But it is something which, by the power and work of the Holy Spirit, humans can have; not as the operating power of the human intellect, but as the supernatural work and gift of God.

This is why I am fully persuaded that even the infant and small child can believe. When infants and young children were brought before the Lord He rebuked His disciples for trying to prevent the little ones from coming to Him, “for to such as these belong the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). If it is impossible for an infant to have faith (because it requires a faculty of human intellectual or reasoning prowess), and if none can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again (John 3:3-5), then we exclude certain human beings from membership in God’s royal family, His Church, based upon the criterion of their own ability/inability.

I am not suggesting a TULIP-esque position wherein God has, by sovereign decree, decided who will and will not be saved; and thus the elect having been chosen will most certainly believe (whether they like it or not) and all others (whether by selection or by negation) are passed over and are unavoidably damned.

I am saying, however, that the power and working of God graciously condescending to meet us in Word and Sacrament means that the human heart is changed by the Holy Spirit, and where there was once emptiness, it becomes filled with faith, and in this the human person is indeed a passive recipient. What comes after, our response, the choice to follow or deny, to obey or disobey–all of that matters, for all the reasons Jesus gives in the Parable of the Sower. And that is where St. James’ words about the importance of our works and that “mere belief” doesn’t do us any good when even the demons believe and tremble. It is not “mere belief”, but it is faith alone through which we receive the gift of Christ’s own righteousness, so that all who trust in the Lord are not put to shame.

In the quoted passage from St. Justin’s Apology the blessed and holy martyr is arguing against the Pagan idea of fate. Pagans believed in fate, that the course of a person’s life, whether they were just or wicked, kings or slaves, was decided in some cosmic background, by the gods, written in the stars, etc. Justin very explicitly rejects this idea, unapologetically so. As we all should. Fate is non-Christian. Human beings are not fated to be good or evil, righteous or unrighteous, their status as kings or slaves or whatever is not written in the stars, woven by the threads of capricious “gods”. Human beings are created with the dignity of choice.

The doctrine of Total Inability is not a rejection of human dignity and volition; but a recognition that the problem of sin is so deep inside of us that it requires literal Divine Intervention to rescue us; and that Intervention is not found in the giving of a command. The Law cannot make us righteous, the Law which should give life, instead brings death. Not by a deficiency in the Law, but the deficiency in ourselves on account of sin (Romans 7:7-25). Which is also why the Apostle had aforementioned, quoting the Scriptures, said “There is no one that is righteous, not even one” “There is no one who seeks after God” (Romans 3:10-12).

It has nothing to do with cosmic (or divine) “fate” determining whether a person is good or evil; it is that all of us are fully and entirely sinful (Romans 3:23) and thus all of us need the Divine Intervention of the Gospel, since “God consigned all to disobedience in order that He might have mercy on all” (Romans 11:32).

So that through this Gospel the Holy Spirit works in us to create faith, and have become born again as new people; a new man, a new creation, in Christ; born of God, a child of adoption.

Some closing remarks from the holy and blessed doctor of grace, St. Augustine:

“And he says that a man is justified by faith and not by works, because faith itself is given, from which may be obtained other things which are specially characterized as works, in which a man may live righteously. For he himself also says, ‘By grace you are saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves; but it is the gift of God,’–that is to say, ‘And in saying “through faith,” even faith itself is not of yourselves, but is God’s gift.’ ‘Not of works,’ he says, ‘lest any man should be lifted up.’” - St. Augustine, On Predestination, I.12

“The spirit of grace, therefore, causes us to have faith, in order that through faith we may, on praying for it, obtain the ability to do what we are commanded. On this account the apostle himself constantly puts faith before the law; since we are not able to do what the law commands unless we obtain the strength to do it by the prayer of faith.” - St. Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 28

100

Couple of problems here @TheologyNerd

Absolutely appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post—especially your clear desire to exalt the grace of God as the initiator and sustainer of saving faith. But I’d like to offer a response that both affirms what Scripture says about God’s work in salvation while also challenging some of the assumptions embedded in the “faith is not of ourselves” model as it’s often interpreted.

You rightly point out that faith is not mere intellectual assent, and I agree entirely—James 2:19 indeed shows us that even demons “believe” (πιστεύουσιν) in a propositional sense, yet have no saving relationship. The biblical concept of saving faith involves trust, loyalty, and surrender—a relational fidelity grounded in God’s covenantal invitation.

However, the repeated emphasis you make that faith is wholly extra nos—entirely outside ourselves and purely the work of God, such that the human response is entirely passive—runs into several exegetical and theological problems when examined closely against the full witness of Scripture and the understanding of the pre-Augustinian Fathers.

Let me respond to a few key points:

  1. Romans 10:17 – “Faith comes by hearing” does not mean faith is passively implanted
    Romans 10:17 – “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” – refers to the means by which faith is born, not the mode of its operation. It shows that the message heard enables a person to believe, but it does not imply that the hearer plays no volitional role. Many hear and yet do not believe (Acts 28:24), suggesting that the hearing makes faith possible, but not inevitable or irresistible.

  2. Ephesians 2:8 – “It is the gift of God” refers to salvation, not faith itself
    The Greek grammar of τοῦτο – “this” in Ephesians 2:8 is neuter, while πίστις – “faith” is feminine. Greek grammar requires agreement in gender, and thus τοῦτο does not refer back to πίστις directly. Many commentators (including F.F. Bruce, NICNT) understand “this is not of yourselves” to refer to the entire process of salvation, not to faith as a distinct gift implanted without response.

If anything, it supports the idea that we do not earn salvation–but it doesn’t negate the human responsibility to respond to God’s initiative in faith.

  1. John 1:13 – Being born of God is a result of belief, not a prerequisite to it

You referenced John 1:13 to support the idea that we are born not of human will, but of God. However, the previous verse (John 1:12) must be included: “But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God.” The order is important–believing leads to becoming children of God, not the reverse. Thus, the new birth (v.13) is not what enables faith but is what follows genuine belief and reception.

  1. The demons do not “trust” because they reject God’s will, not because they are incapable
    You rightly say that demons do not “trust”–but that is due to rebellion, not inability.

Nowhere does Scripture teach that spiritual beings (or humans) are ontologically incapable of trusting God. Rather, they refuse to do so. This is why so many calls in Scripture appeal to the will: “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15), “Seek the Lord while He may be found” (Isaiah 55:6), “You refuse to come to Me that you may have life” (John 5:40). These are not rhetorical performances—they are genuine invitations requiring human response.

  1. The Parable of the Sower contradicts monergistic passivity
    The soil does not receive life before the seed is sown. In the parable, the difference lies not in the external act of sowing, which is uniform, but in the condition of the heart to receive and retain the Word. The stony ground, the thorny ground, and the good soil all hear—the outcomes differ not because of divine selective grace, but because of how the Word is received and whether it is retained in faith and obedience (Luke 8:15). This cannot be explained in a purely monergistic framework without undermining the plain narrative Jesus gives.

  2. Pre-Augustinian Fathers do not teach total inability
    You cite Augustine’s post-412 writings, but earlier Christian teachers—including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and even early Augustine—affirmed free will as a God-given capacity that enables faith. Justin Martyr wrote:

“We have learned from the prophets… that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power.” (First Apology, 43)
The very passage you quoted from Justin’s Apology is against the Stoic determinism which modern Calvinism mimics under different terminology.

  1. Infants and faith – a separate category
    Jesus’ welcome of infants in Luke 18:15–17 does not necessitate that infants exercise personal faith in the same way as adults. His point is about receptivity and dependence—not cognition. To say infants have saving faith in the same mode as conscious believers is a category error. God certainly receives them, but not based on an indistinguishable “gift of faith” implanted without awareness. Infants are under the mercy of God—yes—but the normative call to believe is given to those who can respond (Mark 1:15).

  2. Romans 3:10–12 – “No one seeks God” is descriptive, not prescriptive
    Romans 3:10–12 is a compilation of Psalms and wisdom literature that describes the condition of fallen humanity under sin. It does not mean no one can seek God; it means that left in sin, people do not. This aligns perfectly with the idea that God initiates, draws, convicts—and that people are then responsible to respond. Acts 17:27 says God arranged the world so that people “might seek God… and find him.”

Conclusion:
Faith is indeed a gift in the sense that the opportunity, the revelation, and the drawing are from God. But Scripture consistently treats belief as something for which humans are held responsible. If faith were entirely “extra nos” in the sense that God causes it unilaterally without human volition, then none of the appeals to repent, believe, or resist unbelief make any rational or moral sense. God enables, but we must respond.

Let me leave you with a word from Origen, who wrote extensively before Augustine shifted the consensus toward predestination:

“It is our part to believe and choose; God gives the increase to our faith and the strength to persevere.”
(Commentary on Romans 2.9.3)

Johann.

101

While Matthew 28:19 instructs to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” a closer examination of both language and biblical practice reveals something critical: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not personal names—they are titles or roles that describe God’s relational manifestations. A name is specific, unique, and used for identification. For example, if someone said, “Write me a check in the name of the CEO, the founder, and the manager,” you’d still need an actual name to legally sign it—those are titles, not legal identifiers.

When the apostles baptized converts in the book of Acts (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5), they always invoked the name of Jesus Christ, showing us how they understood and obeyed the command in Matthew 28:19. They didn’t see a contradiction—they saw revelation. Jesus is the name that encompasses the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). He is the Father revealed (John 10:30), the Son given (Isaiah 9:6), and the Spirit sent (John 14:18). Just as Jesus said He came in His Father’s name (John 5:43), and the Holy Ghost is sent in His name (John 14:26), it becomes clear that Jesus is the revealed, saving name.

Furthermore, Acts 4:12 declares that there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. That name is not “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”—those are descriptive titles of God’s relationship to creation and redemption—but Jesus is the name that carries the authority, power, and fulfillment of that singular divine identity. So when the apostles baptized in Jesus’ name, they weren’t bypassing Matthew 28:19; they were obeying it through revelation, invoking the name that embodies all three titles in one divine person.

Your interpretation of Matthew 28:19 rightly emphasizes that the word “name” is singular, not plural—suggesting a single, unified name that encompasses the full identity of the Godhead. The text does not say “in the names,” but rather “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This invites a deeper investigation: what is that singular name? When we examine how the apostles—those who heard Jesus speak these words directly—actually obeyed this command in the book of Acts, we consistently see baptism performed in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). This was not an act of disobedience or doctrinal innovation, but rather a Spirit-led fulfillment of what Jesus meant in Matthew 28:19.

Jesus said He came in His Father’s name (John 5:43), the Holy Spirit comes in Jesus’ name (John 14:26), and the Son was explicitly named Jesus (Matthew 1:21). These are not three separate names or persons, but three manifestations of the one God revealed in the singular saving name—Jesus. Colossians 2:9 affirms that “in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” meaning the fullness of deity is expressed in Jesus alone.

To baptize “in the name of Jesus Christ” is not to reject the Father or the Spirit—it is to invoke the one name by which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have chosen to reveal themselves to the world in redemption. The early church, under apostolic guidance, understood this truth and acted accordingly. Therefore, the practice of Jesus-name baptism is not merely permissible—it is apostolically commanded and biblically consistent with the revelation of God’s revealed singular saving name.

While the Didache is often cited as evidence for early Trinitarian baptismal practice, it’s important to examine both the context and the broader historical trajectory of baptismal formulas. The Didache (chapter 7), dated variably between 60–120 AD, does indeed mention baptizing “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” However, this reflects a liturgical instruction rather than a record of how baptisms were actually carried out in narrative practice, especially when compared to the book of Acts—our earliest and inspired historical record of the Church in action.

Acts provides repeated and consistent examples of baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). These were not generic invocations of divine authority, but a specific and Spirit-inspired pattern of identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3–4). Even Paul himself was baptized calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

As church tradition developed, post-apostolic writings began incorporating creedal formulations, especially by the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries. For example, Tertullian (c. 200 AD) affirms Trinitarian formulas in On Baptism (chapter 13), reflecting the influence of developing theology rather than apostolic practice. Similarly, Hippolytus in Apostolic Tradition (c. 215 AD) offers a full Trinitarian baptismal liturgy—but again, this postdates the apostolic era and reflects a growing dogmatic structure.

Thus, while the Didache may represent early Christian teaching, it does not nullify the actual pattern seen in inspired scripture. The name of Jesus is the revealed saving name (Acts 4:12), and the apostles—under the authority of Christ and filled with the Holy Ghost—consistently invoked that name in baptism. The shift from invoking the name of Jesus to using the Trinitarian formula reflects not an apostolic command, but a gradual theological development rooted in evolving post-biblical tradition.

It’s unfortunate that disagreement on post-biblical creeds is seen as a conversation-ending point, especially when the aim should be to seek truth rooted in Scripture, not tradition. My rejection of the Nicene Creed does not stem from a lack of reverence for Christ—it comes from a conviction that true Christian orthodoxy must be built on the inspired Word of God, not on the philosophical language and political compromises of 4th-century councils. I believe in Jesus as the one true God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily (Colossians 2:9), and the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). That is not a denial of Christ—it is a bold affirmation of His absolute deity and singular identity. The idea that fellowship or fruitful discussion is impossible unless one affirms the language of a creed written centuries after the apostles is a dangerous elevation of tradition over revelation. Let us reason together from Scripture, not disqualify one another on the basis of man-made formulations.

102

7 posts were merged into an existing topic: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: How Do You Understand the Godhead?