Question:

Have you ever considered the possibility that "in the name" is a metephor? I mean,
whether Oneness or Trinitarians use the term, both use it as a metephor. You cannot
literally baptize someone in a name, since a "name " is just a word. One cannot be
immersed in a word. Oneness folks seem be using this as a metephor for speaking or
calling a name in baptism. Or, perhaps they are using it in the sense that Paul spoke, of
being baptized "into Christ." But, either way, it is a metephor, not a literal use of the
term. I think that other uses of the term "in the name" in Scripture would indicate for us
what this metephor is all about.
There is perfectly ligitimate and biblical metephor for "in the name." It means "by the
authority." It is a term used by an ambassador, who comes representing someone else.
(An "Apostle" is an ambassador, and necessarily comes in someone else's name). To
come in someone's name, means to come by their authority, and/or in their place. To do
something in someone's name means that it is just as though they were here doing it
themselves. The person baptizing in Jesus' name is baptizing by His authority, and in His
place.
"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent
me.He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's
reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall
receive a righteous man's reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these
little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he
shall in no wise lose his reward." - (Matt 10:40-42, KJV)
Jesus was making a play on words here. His point was that if we receive Him, we receive
the one who sent Him. Those who receive a prophet, or a righteous man, by their own
authority/power, will receive a reward. Same with a disciple of Jesus. But, the implied
point is that since Jesus came in the name of (or by the authority/power of, or on behalf
of) His Father, receiving Jesus implies receiving the Father, and this will bring a far
greater reward.
"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own
name, him ye will receive." - (John 5:43, KJV)
"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my
Father's name, they bear witness of me." - (John 10:25, KJV)
I don't recall Jesus ever making a statement like "in the name of the Father" while
preforming any miracle. In this case, it seems to me He is simply saying that He did these
things by the Father's authority/power. Since, Jesus is the one who declares the Father
(John 1:18), everything He did was in the Father's name. (by the authority of, and on
behalf of) the Father.
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have
said unto you." - (John 14:26, KJV)
Here "in my name" seems to mean "in my place." I don't think the Father said "in the
name of Jesus" when He sent the Holy Spirit.
I am convinced that "in the name of" in Matt. 28:19 means "by the authority of." Look at
verse 18! Jesus said "all authority/power has been given to me in heaven and earth."
Given Him by whom? The word "given" indicates that Jesus received this
authority/power from another! Then He immediately says: "go therefore" or on account
of the fact that I have received all authority/power, I am now commanding you to go ....
baptize "in the name of" (or by the authority/power of) the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I
do not see this as necessarily a "formula" for baptism, but rather a statement of where the
authority to baptize comes from. Likewise, to baptize "in Jesus' name" means by the
authority/power of Jesus given to the disciples in the Great Commission. So, in my
opinion, there is no conflict between these terms, because they were not meant to be a
specific "formula." The authority/power originates with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
To baptize "in the name of" the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, means to baptize by the
authority/power of all three. To baptize in Jesus' name means to baptize based on this
same authority/power that was passed along to the Apostles by Jesus Himself, since all
authority/power had been granted to Jesus in heaven and earth.

Response:
First I would like to say that I agree with a lot of what you are saying. To say "in the
name of Jesus" definitely means "by his authority" or better yet, even " in his stead."
Baptizing someone would make them a disciple of the person doing the baptism (see for
example, John 4:1). When John baptized someone that made that person a disciple of
John. It meant "I'm a follower of this guy and believe what he teaches." When a minister
baptizes someone in Jesus' name we are doing it in Jesus' stead and initiating that person
into Christianity. When Jesus did miracles in the Father's name it is true that he probably
did not speak the words "in the name of the Father" when he said them. But I don't
believe he said "in the name of" anyone else either. When we baptize someone,
something must be spoken in connection with the baptism to distinguish it as Christian
baptism. What was done differently when the Ephesian disciples were re-baptized in
Jesus' name in Acts 19?
Jesus is the one who personally comissioned the disciples to go and baptize and they
went "on behalf of him," or "in his name." He also sent them to heal people and work
miracles. When Peter healed the man at the Gate Beautiful in Jesus' name, scripture tells
us that he actually spoke the words "in the name of Jesus Christ" when he did it (Acts
3:6). Even when Trinitarian Christians pray for someone for healing they speak the words
"in Jesus' name." They realize that they are doing it "on behalf of" or "in the name of"
Christ. Why would baptism be any different? Jesus said that when we pray we are to ask
the Father in him name (John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23, 26). And so when many Christians
pray, they end their prayer with the actual words "in Jesus name."
Furthermore, as I pointed out in the article, baptism is exclusively connected with Christ
throughout the New Testament (with the exception of Matt. 28:19). Paul would hardly
say that the Romans and Galatians were "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) had
the apostles routinely used the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost" when they baptized. People just would not have made that type of
connection. Even for a Trinatarian it makes more sense to baptize in Jesus' name. If there
is more than one person in the Godhead, Jesus is the one who died for us. And so, he is
the one we are "buried with" (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).

Question:
I think we are actually very close regarding baptism. Since we agree that "in the name"
means by the authority, the exact words are not what is important. Rather what we mean
by those words is important. For example, as Christians we could say "in the name of
Christ" and it would be perfectly acceptable. (In fact, Paul referred to being baptized into
"Christ" {not Jesus} Gal. 3:27).
Cyprian argued strongly that former Gnostics who had been baptized "in the name of
Christ" MUST be rebaptized after conversion to Orthodox Christianity. The reason being
the Gnostics believed "Christ" was a spirit that came upon the man Jesus. They did NOT
baptize in Jesus' name (a man) but in the name of "Christ" (a divine spirit). "Whom do
you say that I am?" is the crucial question here. If baptism in someone's name means by
their authority, then our theology regarding the Godhead is indeed important, because we
are citing our authority when we baptize.
As a Trinitarian, I see nothing wrong with baptism in the name of Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost. "Son" is a title for Jesus just like "Christ" is a title for Jesus. My point in my letter
was that using the Trinitarian formula cannot be wrong since it is found in Matt. 28:18.
What we mean by the words is very important. Oneness folks claim that Jesus meant that
the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is "Jesus." But, even if the Oneness view
of the Godhead is correct, what would be wrong with saying "in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost" if someone meant by that to indicate a single name for all three?
Obviously, nothing can be wrong with it since that is precisely what Jesus said! Again,
the issue here is what do we mean by the words we speak! It is the theology that is behind
the words, not the words themselves. Our exegesis of Matt. 28:18-20 is critical to this
question, because Jesus clearly said by whose authority He was sending the Apostles,
AND by whose authority they could baptize.

Response:
Well I agree with you in part again. It is more the meaning than the actual words that we
are after. However, I don't know that when we speak the words "in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" that this conveys the meaning of "in Jesus name"
to the average person. And as I pointed out, if the early church had routinely used the
actual words of Matthew 28:19 when baptizing then the people would not have connected
baptism so exclusively with Christ only.
Our actual goal as Oneness People is merely to be truthful. We strive to "weed out"
traditions and doctrines of men which were added later. Basically, we try to take what
Luther started to its logical conclusion. We see the Trinity as not Apostolic or of the
Apostles, but as a later development. Even many Trinitarian seminary professors would
agree with this, as they put much authority in church history. In fact, many of them would
readily admit that Peter and Paul were not Trinitarians. But they see the goal of the Bible
scholar/theologian to develop the seed left by the writers of the New Testament. Some
think others to be arrogant to even question the wisdom of the church fathers. We on the
other hand see our job description as one of recovery of truth which has been lost or
distorted, to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints"
(Jude 3). Of course we don't want to ignore what others have written or said about the
Bible, but we understand this merely to be the thinking of fallible men. As I have said
before, it is just like the pre / post issue. I believe that the church has gotten away from
what the apostles taught in many respects and that we need to get it back.

Question:
I can appreciate the fact that you (and other Oneness folks) want to cut through the
tradition and get to Apostole's doctrine. However, I do not agree with you regarding what
Apostolic doctrine was regarding the nature of the Godhead. While you might find some
professors who would say that the early church was not "Trinitarian," I can tell you that
many would strongly disagree.
Also, there is a bunch of false information being circulated about the beliefs of the early
Church. Just like the pretribbers misrepresent them, so too do the Oneness folks. I have
debated several of them on message boards, and refuted (with lengthy quotations) every
one of their so called "facts" about the beliefs of the early Church. I hope you will
approach this with the same openness you have shown regarding the rapture issue.
Brother, I am convinced that the Word of God does NOT teach the Oneness concept of
God, but rather refutes it. And my search of the ECF confirms that Christians have heald
to distinct persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, from the very beginning.
What I would like is the opportunity to answer all objections to this you may have from
Scripture, as well as for you to allow me the opportunity to present my case from
Scripture, and also from church history. Scripture is the sole authority. But, Church
history is a witness (admittedly not always credible) to what the Apostles handed down
through oral tradition. The creeds, as imperfect as they are, were an attempt to preserve in
simple language what the oral teaching of the Apostles' was, through the convergence of
the testimony of many witnesses from all over the Roman Empire, from local churches
established through the missionary activity of the Apostles and their associates.

Response:
I will admit that I have also known some Oneness folks who tried a little too hard to
defend what they believed in and misrepresent some of the facts. This is not unique to us.
I have seen Christians of all persuasions do the same in defending their particular
doctrinal distinctives. But for our folks that do it, I humbly apologize. Even if we are
defending the "truth," this is not the way to do it. God is one then we have nothing to
hide. If God is a Trinity then I want to be converted. I really do want the truth. Of course,
I believe quite strongly that the Bible does teach that God is one. Our theology is rooted
in Deut. 6:4, echoed very strongly throughout the Old Testament and also (though not as
strongly) in the New Testament. Now, what you run into with some of those who wear
the label "Oneness" may not exactly reflect this, but the basic concept that God is
fundamentally one as opposed to being fundamentally three I think is very basic to the
Bible. In our opinion, it is what monotheism is all about.
Finally, I would like to mention that what we hold to and what is believed on the popular
level of Oneness theology may be quite different. The same is true for Trinitarianism. I
remember one scholar said that on the popular level, most Trinitarians are either tritheists
or modalists. What we have run into with our website is that, on the popular level, many
of our people are Nestorian, where Jesus is almost two people in one (one divine and one
human), or they are Sabellian, where there is no God outside of Jesus Christ and his
prayers were basically a charade. It may suprise you to know that we fight very
adamantly against both of these misconceptions. I have a feeling that this is what you are
running into with your discussions with other Oneness folks. We acknowledge that the
Bible OFTEN makes a distinction between God and the Son of God (aka Father and Son,
God almighty and Jesus Christ). But this is never a distinction between God and God (aka
God the Father and God the Son). Jesus is somehow identified as God and yet
distinguished from God all at the same time. We also acknowledge that the Bible (not
quite as often) makes SOME distinction between God and his Spirit (aka God the Father
and the Holy Ghost). This we see as similar to a man distinguishing his spirit from
himself. In fact, Paul compares God and his Spirit to a man and his spirit in 1 Cor. 2:11. I
can talk about my spirit in the third person and distinguish it from myself and yet I am
still one person.

"There can be only one" (Highlander quote).

TRINITY
For quite some time, the trinity doctrine has been an extremely controversial subject. The
word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible anywhere. How then, did it become a major
part of modern-day religion?
The modern belief in the trinity originated in the 14th century at the Council of Nicea in
approximately 324 C.E. King Constantine, the Roman Emperor and an adherent to
paganism, presided over the Council. Its main purpose was to unite the Roman Empire by
achieving agreement on Christian doctrine. This would promote a universal consolidation
within the church. According to history, in the same year that Constantine convened the
council, in a fit of rage, he killed his innocent son Crispus, and then later also killed his
wife.
The Verdict
As the council proceeded, there were two distinct sides which the Archdeacon Athanasius
of Alexandrai, Egypt upheld regarding the trinity. Arius fought for the opposition. After
long weeks of debate, the admitted pagan, Pontifex Maximus Constantine, ruled in favor
of the trinitarian teaching of Athanasius, the Egyptian. Egypt, one of the oldest
civilizations in the world, had long before adopted the pagan belief of the trinity. One of
the most famous Egyptian trinities was that of Horus, Isis and Seb, (HIS), a trinity that
consisted of father, mother and son, and a concept which also traces back to Babylonian
ancestry. As ironic as it may seem, there is a movement now by those who no longer pray
to their Heavenly Father, but to a Heavenly Mother. The letters HIS appear on the altars
in most Catholic and Protestant churches today, being erroneously explained as standing
for various Latin phrases.
History teaches that much later, after instituting a mandatory belief in the trinity,
Constantine tried to be more tender and merciful with the decision, but it was too late.
The Nicean Creed had taken hold. All who did not believe in the trinity doctrine were
persecuted and killed. Every available instrument of torture was used on the nonbeliever.
The Nicean Creed has since been amended, but it is still read today in many of the
Protestant and Catholic churches. Belief in the trinity doctrine is now required by those
churches who associate themselves with the World Council of Churches.
Trinity Explained
The explanation of the trinity by Trinitarians is extremely confusing. Trinitarians teach
that there are three persons, but one essence—all equal. The most distinctive doctrine of
the trinity is that of the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit. The term “trinity” is not a
Bible term; it is a manmade term. To believe in the trinity is to believe that there is a
unity of the heavenly beings. There are three co-eternal, co-equal persons, the same in
substance, but different in individuality. There are three persons—the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. Now these three are truly distinct one from another, and yet they are
all one. The Nicean Creed reads that “...the Heavenly Father is God, the Son is God, and
the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods, just one.”
This appraisal of the trinity would lead one to believe that the Father must be His own
son, and the Son must be His own Father, and that the third entity, the Holy Spirit, is
equal to the first two, the three being one, yet different. Hard to explain? Not for a
Trinitarian. They conclude this explanation with the famous phrase: “It’s a great mystery
of faith.” It is truly a mystery.
Pagan to Christian
Nearly all pagan religions believe in more than one deity— the Babylonians, the
Egyptians, the Hindus, the Buddhists. It is a historical fact that Christianity merged many
of its teachings with paganism, making it more widely acceptable to its members. Pagan
ideas, in many forms, have been accepted by Christians, openly admitted in Cardinal
John Henry Newman’s book entitled, “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,”
published in 1878. Reading in chapter 8, pages 355, 371, and 373: “The rulers of the
church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, to imitate, or
to sanctify the existing rights and customs of the populous, as well as the philosophy of
the educated class. The use of temples and those dedicated to particular saints, and
ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps and candles, votive
offerings on recovering from illnesses, holy water, holy days and seasons, use of
calendars, processions, blessing on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the ring, chants, the
Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin and sanctified by adoption into the church.”
If you add the fact that they adopted Sunday worship from the Romans, Easter from the
Egyptians, and Christmas from the Babylonians, that does not leave Christianity with
much that is truly original, does it? All of these beliefs came from pagan religions.
The Biblical Perspective
What does the Holy Bible say about the trinity? Do the Scriptures uphold the teaching
that the Son is equal to the Father, or the Holy Spirit is equal to both Son and Father? Do
the Scriptures teach that anyone or anything is equal to Yahweh? Definitely not! The
Scripture teaches the exact opposite.
We can divide this study into different categories. First, let’s see what Yahweh has to say.
Second, we’ll read what the Messiah Yahshua said. Then, we’ll look directly at the Holy
Spirit, and clearly define who and what it is.
First, what does Yahweh have to say about this subject? In Isaiah 44:6, He says: “Thus
says Yahweh, the King of Israel, and His redeemer, Yahweh of Hosts; ‘I am the first and
the last; and beside Me there is no mighty one.’” Also, in Isaiah 44:24, He says: “Thus
says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and He that formed you from the womb, ‘I am Yahweh
that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads broad the earth
by Myself.’” Notice the words Yahweh uses to describe Himself and what He does;
words like “beside Me there is no other Mighty one,” and “by Myself,” and the word
“alone.” It does not sound as if Yahweh is confused about this situation. In Isaiah 43:10,
He said: “You are My witnesses,” says Yahweh, “My servant whom I have chosen, that
you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He; before Me there was no
mighty one formed, neither shall there be after Me.” He sounds very positive, doesn’t
He? Notice how He clearly stated there were none before Him, and that there will be
none after him. Could it be said any clearer or in a more accurate way?
Yahshua’s Own Words
What about the Messiah Yahshua? Did He come preaching that He was equal to the
Mighty One of this world? Where did Yahshua get all of His knowledge? He got it from
the same place any son does—from His Father. He said, in John 15:15, “For all things
that I heard of My Father I have made known to You.” He is passing on the knowledge
He learned from Yahweh to His disciples. Notice that He always refers to Yahweh as His
Father, the authority figure. He never calls Him—Yahweh—His partner or His co-
worker, as if to say that He was equal to Him.
Now, if Yahshua is equal to the Father, He would know all the things that Yahweh
knows! But that is not the case as we see in John 5:19. The Messiah said: “Verily, verily,
I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do: for what
things soever He does, then also does the Son likewise.” In verse 20, we read a very
important account, “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He
Himself does: and He will show Him greater works that these, that you may marvel.”
Yahshua is saying that His Father has shown Him all He knows and He is going to show
Him even more, even greater works that all may marvel.
Here is one of the most important scriptures to refute trinity: John 14:28, “You have
heard how I said to you that I go away and come again to you. If you loved Me, you
would rejoice, because I go to the Father: FOR MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I!”
Yahshua is very clear in the fact that He is NOT equal with His Father!
In direct contrast, Yahshua the Messiah puts Himself in a category in which we may be
included. In John 20:17, He told Mary to go back and tell the brethren: “I ascend to My
Father, and your Father; and to My Mighty One, and your Mighty One.” If Yahshua’s
Father and my Father are the same, that means there will come a time when Yahshua will
be our big brother. Now, isn’t that something to look forward to?
Now, consider this. Yahshua is getting ready for His second coming and He doesn’t even
know when that day will be. Does that sound ridiculous? It’s not. He said that very thing
in Matthew 24:35. When asked when the end of the age would come, He answered: “But
of that day and hour knows no man, not even the angels in heaven, but My Father only.”
The Holy Spirit Identified
How about the Holy Spirit? Who Is it? What is it? Let’s take a closer look at the
Scriptures to see if we can answer these questions. Some say the Holy Spirit must be a
person because the Scripture refers to it as “He.” We know the Hebrew language has no
neuter gender. Everything is referred to as he or she, masculine or feminine. There is no
“it.” We see an example of that in Matthew 26:52, when they arrived to take the Messiah
away. Yahshua told Peter to “...put your sword into his place.” We know the sword
couldn't have been male or female. Now for the moment, let’s put that aside and take a
look at Romans 8:26. Here we read, “But the spirit itself makes intercession for us.” Here
we see the proper rendering by using the pronoun “it.”
Is the Holy Spirit an individual? Is it the third person of the trinity? Well, if it is, then it
should have equal share with the Father and Son, shouldn’t it? Let’s check the Scriptures
to see if it does. In Luke 1:32, we see the Father giving the Son a throne. I don’t see Him
doing likewise to the Holy Spirit. In John1:1, we see that, in the beginning, there was the
Father and the Word—the Word we know to be Yahshua. Why wasn’t the Holy Spirit
included with them? In Acts 7:55, Stephen looked up to heaven and saw the glory of
Yahweh and Yahshua standing at His right hand. But he failed to mention the Holy
Spirit. If Yahshua was at His right hand, wouldn’t the Holy Spirit have been at His left?
Again, in Revelation 3:21 and 22:3, we see two thrones—Yahweh’s throne and
Yahshua’s throne. The throne is a symbol of power and authority. Surely, if the Holy
Spirit was co-equal, then it would have its own throne.
Yahweh says: “Study the Scripture. Hold fast to that which is good.” Remember, the day
of judgment is going to be a one-on-one situation. Let’s pray we choose the right one.
Those who believe and teach the trinity doctrine will have to face the same judgment
everyone else does.
What, then, is the Holy Spirit? In John 15:26, we read that the Spirit comes from Yahweh
and, in this verse, it comes to us as proof of the Creator. When Yahshua was baptized in
Matthew 3:16, we see the Holy Spirit again coming from Yahweh, this time in the form
of a dove. Turn to Acts 10:38 and read for yourself what the Holy Spirit is. Yahweh
anointed Yahshua with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He used it to do good,
healing all that were oppressed—and Yahweh was with Him. The Holy Spirit is
Yahweh's power, the power He sent out from Himself to do His work. As Ephesians 4:30
says: “Grieve not; the Holy Spirit of Yahweh seals us till the day of redemption.”
The Holy Spirit is no great mystical figure, some calling it instead the “Holy Ghost.” We
are introduced to Yahweh’s spirit in Genesis 1:2, “And the spirit of Yahweh moved upon
the face of the waters.”
A Trinitarian will not be able to answer the question: If the “Godhead” consists of three
co-equal persons, the Holy Spirit being the third one, then why didn’t Yahshua, the
Messiah, call the Holy Spirit His Father? After all, aren’t we told in Matthew 1:20 that
Mary’s child was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Do you see how confused this could
become?
Bible Truths vs. Man’s Beliefs
All religions claim to get the basic beliefs and doctrines for their religion from the Bible.
But when you ask them to explain the trinity, they tell you it’s a mystery of faith that
cannot be understood. That contradicts what the Scriptures say. Matthew 10:26 says that
there is nothing covered that won’t be uncovered, nothing hidden that won’t be revealed
(see also Luke 8:17, and 12:2). There is no secret that won’t be made manifest; neither
anything hidden that won’t be known.
The Scriptures also tell us to search and we will find; to ask and it will be given to us; to
knock and it will be opened. Aren’t those who are teaching Scripture today reading the
same Bible that we are? If they are, then where are they hiding those Scriptures saying
that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equal?
Where do men get the right or the authority to burden us with unscriptural rules,
regulations and false ideas? Life could be so simple. The only thing we would have to do
is what Yahweh tells us. We know that all His commands are for our good and that His
Word is truth.