In Part Five (5) of our examination of the "no-formula" doctrine as taught by Don McClain of the "church of Christ" denomination, we look at another scholar that Don has appealed to, to try to substantiate his position.
Don quotes from Marvin Vincent, Word Studies, on the phrase "in the name of" (eis to onoma) as used in Matthew 28:19. This actually a very lengthy quote and Don broke it down over two different charts, but the very intersting thing here is Don's use of "elipses" (...). Notice careful Don's use of elipses (...) between the word "Lord" and "The name." An elipses (...) indicates to the reader that something has been skipped in the quote. Sometimes the elipses (...) isn't realtive to the discussion, but then there are times that elipses (...) are used simply because the person doesn't want that particular information to be made available to the audience. This way the quote is seen as validating the preacher's (in this case Don's) position.
BEWARE OF DON'S USE OF ELIPSES!!!
When the careful student goes back and verfies the quotes used by Don McClain, you will find that some very important information and comments have been skipped!!
When we look at the comments that Don McClain skipped, we see (once again) that the scholars DO NOT agree with Don's "no-formula" doctrine. Dr. Marvin Vincent very much believed in a "baptismal formula" and Don McClain SKIPPED this information in his presentation to the W. 65th Street "church of Christ"!! Notice that Dr. Vincent DID NOT say that the "name" isn't a "designation," rather he said "The name is not the MERE designation..." meaning that the "name" is a "designation," but not a designation only. Thus, Marvin Vincent did believe in a "baptismal formula" and again, the scholars that Don McClain attempts to use to prove his position have actually proven his position to be false!
I ask the question, "Why did Don skip these important comments of Marvin Vincent, seeing as how he HAD to have know they were there?" The answer is because Don knew that the comments did not support his false view, and in order to make Dr. Vincent look as if he supported the "no-formula" doctrine, Don had to misrepresent Dr. Vincent's comments, and take him out of context.
It is a sure sign of a false doctrine, when they skip such important information as this!!
Speaking of misrepresenting the "scholars," I want to show another scholar that Don McClain misrepresents in his teaching of the "no-formula" doctrine.
Don quotes and makes references to Dr. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament. Dr. Robertson, was held as the greatest American scholar of Biblical Greek in his day. Don quotes Dr. Robertson as if A.T. Robertson believed in the "no-formula" doctrine, when in fact he DID NOT!!! Dr. Robertson was a staunch Trinitarian, and fully believed that the words of Matthew 28:19 were the "baptismal formula"!! The very reference Don quoted shows that Dr. Robertson believed that Matthew 28:19 was the baptismal formula. Dr. Robertson stated, "... the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19, but this does not show that it was not used."
Dr. Robertson DID NOT teach the "no-formula" doctrine that there is no "baptismal formula." Rather, he (along with Adam Clarke, Marvin Vincent, Carl Brumback, & Jimmy Swaggart) taught the inconsistent view that "in the name of" only refers to a baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. It is extremely inconsistent and biased to say that "in the name of" (eis to onoma) in Matthew 28:19 refers to the verbally spoken words of a baptismal formula, but the same phrase (eis to onoma) in the same context of water baptism in Acts 8:16 & 19:5 does not.
So, once again we find that the scholar Don McClain quotes to try to validate his "no-formula" doctrine, does not agree with his position at all.
Next we look at a chart presented by Don McClain, where Don appeals to the lexical definition of "in the name of" as found in Joseph Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. One of the main problems here, is that Don is about one hundred years behind in knowledge of Koine Greek. Thayer's lexicon was obsolete the day it rolled off the printing press. This is acknowledged by Moulton-Milligan, the foreword of Bauer's lexicon, and Dr. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.
But there's an even greater problem here with Don's appeal to Thayer's lexicon, and that is that Don (and his other "no-formula" preachers) are VERY SELECTIVE on what they quote from Thayer!!
Don likes to quote Thayer's comments on "in the name of" referring to authority, as if this means "no verbal pronouncement." Just because Thayer defined "in the name of" as "by the authority" this doesn't mean that Thayer was saying "no verbal pronouncement. Actually, Thayer very much believed that "in the name of" referred to verbal pronouncement of the name!!
Thayer qualified his definition of "in the name of" by first saying, "... the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is roused in the mind by MENTIONING, HEARING, remembering the name..." But Don doesn't like to quote this part of Thayer's lexicon!! He wants it to appear that Thayer meant "no verbal pronouncement" when that is absolutely FALSE!! Notice what else Thayer said about "in the name of"
Thayer went on to say that "The phrase 'in the name of Christ' is used in various senses: a by the command and authority of Christ b. in the USE of the name of Christ i.e. the power of his name being INVOKED for assistance..." There are about twice as many references to oral invocation in Thayer's definition of "in the name of" than references to "authority," but again, Don chooses not to mention these in his sermons!! It's not like Don doesn't know that Thayer's lexicon says these things, it is simply Don's choice to misrepresent the lexicons!!
Joseph Thayer very much believed that "in the name of" in relationship to water baptism referred to an oral invocation or verbal profession of the name!!
So, as we can see already, the "no-formula" teaching of Don McClain is built upon a false premise. From there Don misrepresents the Greek lexicons in order to validate his doctrine. But we see upon further examination that scholar Don appealed to in fact DOES NOT agree with his position. Thayer's lexicon mentions time and time again that "in the name of" means a verbal profession of the name, and specifically defined "in the name of" as a verbal profession in relationship to water baptism.
Thus when we speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ" this means baptizing while verbally professing the name of Jesus Christ!
In responding to the "no-formula" teaching of Don McClain of the "church of Christ" denomination, we look at Don's next chart in trying to circumvent the idea of verbally pronouncing the name of Jesus in baptism.
Don claims that in order for there to be a verbal formula, then the prepositions MUST mean pronouncement. Now, I'd just like to ask, "Where in the world did Don get any such idea?" There is absolutely NO rule in Greek grammar (or English grammar for that matter) that says that the prepositions MUST mean pronouncement. This is simply a "straw-man" argument that Don has made up. It is a "paper tiger" that he has created in order to look like a mighty hunter. The truth of the matter is that verbal pronouncement is dependent upon the prepositions (epi, en, eis) being used with "name" (onoma).
Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, Greek - English Lexicon, p. 288 in defining the preposition "epi" (upon) states, "of persons, over which something is done SPEAK THE NAME OF JESUS OVER someone..." Bauer, et al. Lexicon (BAGD) is the most authoritative lexicon on the market today. It is the standard lexicon of Bible colleges and universities. Notice that Bauer's lexicon very much includes the idea of "verbal pronouncement" with the use of the prepositions.
However, we don't have to rely simply on Greek lexicons to understand this. The Bible let's us know that the preposition "epi" when used with "onoma" as in the phrase "in the name of" refers to a verbal pronouncement! Notice the following verse:
Lu 1:59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
This passage is talking about the circumcision of John the baptist. If you remember the account of John's conception, the angel of the LORD appeared to Zacharias and commanded him to name his son "John." Because of Zacharias' unbelief, the angel caused Zacharias not to be able to speak. So at the circumcision of John (he was not yet named), because Zacharias couldn't speak, those that were present at the circumcision named the child "Zacharias, after the name of his father." The phrase "after the name of" in Greek is "epi to onomati" or "(upon) in the name of." Obviously, "in the name of" his father DOES NOT and CANNOT refer to the "authority" of Zacharias, because no one there had Zacharias' authority to name the child "Zacharias" (cf. Luke 1:60f). Thus "in the name of" his father, MUST refer to the "verbally pronounced" name of "Zacharias" which is obvious from the context.
This phrase "epi to onomati" (in the name of) is the exact same phrase used in Acts 2:38 in reference to water baptism: "... be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." Thus, the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" in Acts 2:38 ALSO has reference to the verbally pronounced name of Jesus Christ in baptism!! In fact the Anchor Bible translates Acts 2:38 as "be baptized CALLING ON the name of Jesus..."!!
This blog continues my examination of the “no-formula” doctrine as taught recently by Don McClain, evangelist for the "church of Christ" denomination in Little Rock, AR. As mentioned in the previous blog, Don has consistently taught follow-up lessons on the Godhead and Baptismal Formula issues after public debates in the last three years. Apparently Don feels there is some “patching up” that needs to be done after the debates.
Don began his teaching of the “no-formula” doctrine by presenting a chart that has been used in three debates now. The chart breaks down the definition of the word “name” into four (4) uses: (1) Designation, (2) Reputation, (3) Authority, and (4) Person. From this, Don then gets to play word games, and decides which definition of “name” best fits a particular passage of Scripture. All of this is done in an attempt to circumvent orally invoking the name of Jesus in water baptism. It is amazing (as will be seen in further blogs) that in Matthew 28:19, in relation to baptism, Don says “name” refers to a “relationship” or “union,” but when you get to Acts 2:38 “name” refers to “authority.” It seems that Don can make “name” mean anything he wants to in any particular passage – EXCEPT NAME!! These "no-formula" preachers make up ever excuse for orally invoking something during baptism, except calling it a "baptismal formula" or "invocation." This is the faulty premise of the “no-formula” doctrine.
In looking at Don’s chart, first and foremost, the word “name” in Colossians DOES NOT refer to “authority” (this will be dealt with thoroughly in a later blog). Secondly, you cannot dissect the “Person” from their “Designation.” Their “designation” is who the “person” is!! You cannot refer to the “PERSON” of Jason Weatherly without also giving reference to my “NAME” or “DESIGNATION.” Neither can you make reference to the “NAME” of someone without including their “PERSON.” So, to try to apply the meaning of “PERSON” to the word “name” without including their “DESIGNATION” is absolutely false.
The same is true with “REPUTATION.” You cannot separate a “reputation” from either the “PERSON” or their “NAME” (“designation”). With a “reputation,” someone may not know you “PERSONally” but they know your “NAME” (designation), because the reputation depends on both the “person” and their “name” (designation).
To illustrate the faulty reasoning behind dissecting the meaning of “name,” notice that Don say that “name” in Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” refers to “PERSON” as if “DESIGNATION” doesn’t have relevance in the passage. However, simply a quick examination of the context of Acts chapter 4 shows “name” refers to both the “designation” and the “person.” You CANNOT separate one from the other!
The entire discourse of Peter in Acts chapter four is built upon the foundation of events found in Acts chapter 3
Acts 3: 1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
2And a certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
3Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
4And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.
5And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.
6Then Peter SAID, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
The miracle in Acts chapter 3 took place by means of the ORAL INVOCATION of the name of Jesus! Peter SAID, “In the name of Jesus Christ…” Every statement made concerning this event must be prefaced upon the fact that Peter orally invoked the name of Jesus! Thus when Peter said, “And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all” (Acts ); this has reference to the oral invocation of the name in performing the miracle.
Then in Acts chapter 4, the Jewish leaders of the temple arrested Peter and John, and asked them “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” (Acts 4:7). Jews were familiar with an oral invocation of a “name” in performing miracles. Jewish exorcists were known for casting out demons by orally invoking the name “Solomon.” cf. Matthew 12:27.
This question, “By what power or name, have you done this?” is based upon the foundation of the oral invocation of the name of Jesus in healing the lame man. Peter then stood up and declared to the Jewish council, “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in (en) the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole” (Acts 4:10). Again, the phrase “by” or “in the name of Jesus Christ” points back to the ORAL INVOCATION of the name of Jesus in Acts 3:6, but not “just” to the invocation of the name because it was the “person” of Jesus (“by him”) who was the source of the miracle. So Acts , “no other name” is the answer to the question of “by what name, have you done this?” and refers to BOTH the “person” and the “name” (designation) of Jesus! You CANNOT separate one from the other as Don McClain has tried to do.
The statement that there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved is built upon the foundation of the oral invocation of the name of Jesus in Acts 3:6.
