Re-Examining Baptism in the Name of Jesus Part 4

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.

Jason L. Weatherly