Believers of Acts 2:38 down through history?

[Aquila]

In recent discussions I've been hard on the position of absolute adherence to Acts 2:38 as we understand it on the grounds that it creates a "gap" leaving essentially no one saved down through the ages of human history. In my research on this I found an article that is rather provocative. I want to know if what is stated here is true or is it Apostolic revisionism? If true, I have found a significant answer to my questions. Here's the article:

Source: http://www.articleseen.com/Article_jesus-name-baptism-in-history_87677.aspx

"Baptism in the name of Jesus has evidently existed throughout church history and is now enjoying a great revival. The early church history is explored to include Catholics and others who originally baptized in the name of Jesus. The middle ages also had groups who testified to this mode of baptism. Lastly, the modern groups who once baptized in the name of Jesus (Assemblies of God, Quakers, and many others) and those who continue to keep this practice of the Apostles."

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. (Hebrews 12:1). Since all doctrine must be based on Scripture alone and not on man's traditions, creeds, or philosophies (Galatians 1:8-9; Colossians 2:8; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), we have based all conclusions in this book on the Bible. However, many people have never heard the doctrines we have presented, and some assume them to be modern inventions. Although history cannot alter or replace biblical truth, the study of these doctrines in church history is very enlightening.

Problems in Studying Church History
There are several difficulties that the student of church history, particularly ancient history, must consider:

(1) Doctrinal bias of church historians. Modern historians often interpret the statements of ancient writers from the perspective of their own beliefs, finding teachings that simply are not there. On the other hand, the doctrinal positions of historians can limit their understanding of doctrines that did exist.

(2) Doctrinal bias of ancient church writers. Consciously or unconsciously, ancient writers sometimes distorted or misrepresented the views of their doctrinal opponents. As a result, we do not always have an adequate presentation of certain ancient views, especially minority views. For example, what concept of Oneness would future generations have if their only source of information were articles written by trinitarians? Likewise, skeptical observers have often described worshipers in ways that made them appear ridiculous, absurd, ignorant, or mentally deranged. For example, what would someone think of Pentecostals if he read only the accounts of cynical opponents?

(3) Possibility of interpolations (additions to ancient manuscripts). Most of our information about church history comes from manuscripts that were copied hundreds of years after the original writings. In many cases the copyists changed or inserted certain lines to create support for particular doctrines. For example, a number of the epistles of the post-apostolic fathers exist in short and long versions. Obviously, one form (probably the longer one) is corrupt and reflects changes made by generations of editors and scribes. As another example, an ancient Christian writing called the Didache was apparently written in the 2nd century, but the only Greek manuscript we have of it dates from the 11th century. This means errors and deliberate changes could have accumulated over 900 years, and the document may reflect teachings from Roman Catholicism.

(4) Existing documents may not reflect the views of the average believer of that time period. In times when many people were not literate and books had to be handwritten, theological documents tended to be written and copied by the educated elite. Then, as now, theologians were frequently more liberal in their doctrines than were the majority of believers.

(5) History is written by the victors. Many who opposed officially accepted doctrines were persecuted so that they had little opportunity to leave an adequate written record of their beliefs. The documents they did write were usually destroyed and not recopied. For evidence of a minority doctrine to survive at all often means it must have been very prevalent in its day. Surviving records probably reveal only a fraction of those who actually held the belief.

(6) False doctrines existed from the earliest times. There is plenty of evidence in the biblical writings of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude that false doctrines abounded even in the days of the apostles and threatened to overwhelm the church. For this reason, the antiquity of a writer is no guarantee of his doctrinal purity.

Repentance and Water Baptism
The church leaders of the early post-apostolic era (A.D. 90-140) taught that baptism was for believers only and that repentance was necessary for baptism to be of any value. Lutheran Professor Otto Heick states, "Baptism, of course, was not meant to work magically. Without repentance and faith it would avail nothing." Lutheran Professor E. H. Klotsche says of the belief in this time: "In closest relation to baptism stands repentance. It is preparatory to baptism." However, when infant baptism began to gain acceptance, theologians began to teach that faith and repentance could follow baptism. This ultimately led to the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance. "When the original sequel of repentance and baptism became inverted by the practice of infant baptism, penance… acquired the status of a sacrament."

Water Baptism by Immersion
Church historians generally agree that the early post-apostolic church practiced immersion. Klotsche says, "The practice of immersion was undoubtedly universal in the early church." Kenneth Scott Latourette affirms this view: "Baptism seems to have been by immersion, at least normally." Some historians assert that other modes were practiced in these early times, but they agree that immersion was the predominant and preferred mode even when others began to develop.

Hermas (early 2nd century) described baptism by immersion and Irenaeus (died 202?) denounced baptism by pouring. Tertullian (died 220?) taught baptism by immersion and disapproved of infant baptism. Cyprian (died 258?) is the earliest apologist for sprinkling, but even he considered immersion to be the normal practice. He described baptism as a dipping but advised sprinkling for the sick. The Didache teaches baptism by immersion, but permits pouring if much water is not available. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (2nd or 3rd century), which contains a parallel passage to this portion of the Didache, teaches immersion but does not mention pouring.

The Eastern Orthodox still practice immersion even for infants, despite the fact that their counterparts in the West, the Roman Catholics, switched to sprinkling. Many Protestants continue in the Catholic tradition even though most early Protestant leaders recognized that immersion was the biblical method. Martin Luther expressed a preference for immersion based on the Greek word baptizo; John Calvin acknowledged immersion as the practice of the Early Church; and John Wesley interpreted Romans 6:3-5 to mean immersion.

Water Baptism as Part of Salvation
Early post-apostolic Christians affirmed baptism as part of salvation. Latourette remarked, "Baptism was believed to wash away all sins committed before it was administered. After baptism, the Christian was supposed not to sin." He also said, "Baptism seems to have been regarded as requisite for the remission of sins and for the new birth through which alone one could enter the Kingdom of God."

With respect to baptism in the first and second centuries the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, "The dominant ideas were those of forgiveness of sin, regeneration, and the gift of the Holy Spirit… The change effected by baptism was attributed to the name and to the water, which were regarded as actually effective and not merely symbolic." According to Heick, the post-apostolic fathers (A.D. 90-140) taught that "baptism confers the forgiveness of sins." For example, this was the teaching in the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. For the Greek Apologists (A.D. 130-180) baptism was "a washing of forgiveness and a regeneration." They said it "brings pardon and the new life, and is therefore necessary to salvation."

Other early theologians who taught that God remits sins at water baptism were Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian specifically described water baptism as the birth of the water in John 3:5, and Hippolytus and Cyprian identified water baptism as the laver of regeneration in Titus 3:5. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles paraphrases John 3:5 as, "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Tertullian taught that at water baptism the believer has his sins washed away, is born in water, and is prepared for the Holy Spirit. He believed that John's baptism pointed towards future remission of sins and that Christ's disciples continued John's baptism during Christ's earthly ministry. He described baptism as a seal of faith that is necessary to salvation, stating that John 3:5 "has tied faith to the necessity of baptism."

These men and writings represent many different theological factions, and we do not endorse all of their doctrines; nevertheless it is interesting to see that all agreed on the necessity of baptism. Third century controversies over heretic baptisms demonstrate that all Christendom of the time agreed that "there can be only one baptism, and that this baptism is essential to salvation."

Roman Catholics have always taught the essentiality of baptism, but have transformed it from an act of faith into a sacramental act by teaching the necessity and validity of infant baptism despite the lack of personal faith and repentance. This incorrectly presumes that regeneration comes by the power of the ceremony itself instead of by grace through faith.

Among Protestants, Martin Luther held that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. Article IX of the Augsburg Confession (an early Lutheran creed) states, "Baptism is necessary to salvation."

The Lutheran Catechism says, "Baptism is no trifle, but was instituted by God Himself, … it is most solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved." In accordance with his emphasis on justification by faith, Luther taught that baptism was effective only through faith, but still held that God actually forgives sin at the moment of water baptism. Luther even taught the validity of infant baptism, based on the theory that God gives faith to infants. In our estimation, Luther was incorrect in teaching infant faith and infant baptism, but he was correct in simultaneously affirming justification by faith and the essentiality of water baptism.

Most Protestants after Luther began to teach that baptism is symbolic only, but this is a comparatively new doctrine in church history and not all Protestants accept it. In addition to Luther and his followers, the Churches of Christ teach that water baptism is necessary in order to obtain remission of sins. United Church of Christ theologian Donald Bloesch stated, "Baptism plays a prominent role in our conversion and is not just a symbol of our conversion." He also wrote, "The overall witness of the New Testament seems to be that baptism by itself is not indispensable for salvation, but baptism joined with repentance and faith becomes the means by which people receive the gift of regeneration."

TO BE CONTINUED...

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

The Earliest Formula
Early post-apostolic Christians administered water baptism by using the name of Jesus in the formula. According to Heick, "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." He concluded from a passage in the writings of Justin (which we will analyze shortly) that during the period from about A.D. 130 to 140 the trinitarian baptismal formula gradually received acceptance.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states: "The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin), (b) a moral vow (Justin and perhaps Hermas, as well as already in the NT in I Peter), (c) trine immersion (Justin), (d) a confession of faith (Irenaeus, or perhaps Justin), (e) unction (Tertullian), (f) sponsors (Tertullian), (g) milk and honey (Tertullian)."

It further elaborates: "In connection with the name… the question of formula arises. The earliest known formula is 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' or some similar phrase; this is found in the Acts, and was perhaps still used by Hermas, but by the time of Justin Martyr the trine formula had become general. It is possible that the older formula survived in isolated communities, but there is no decisive contemporary evidence."

First and Second Centuries
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible admits that one could draw the following conclusion from the historical evidence: "The original form of words was 'into the name of Jesus Christ' or 'the Lord Jesus.' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development. After the one mention of it, Mt. 28:19, we do not find it again until Justin Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that in the Gospel."

The dictionary preferred one of the following two explanations sometimes given by trinitarians as to the use of the name of Jesus, since they are more consistent with traditional practice: (1) Baptism in the name of one person in the trinity is baptism in the name of the whole trinity and so is valid. (This explanation admits that the original formula actually was "in the name of Jesus.") (2) The phrase "in the name of Jesus" was not meant to be a formula, but only signified that the baptized ones acknowledged Jesus as Lord and Christ. (Of course, this logic could be applied equally as well to Matthew 28:19, leaving us with no formula for Christian baptism.)

In addition to the sources we have cited, most other church historians agree that baptism in Jesus' name was the older formula; further quotations are reproduced in a footnote.

Hermas in the early second century wrote of baptism "in the name of the Lord" and in the "name of the Son of God." He taught that baptism caused an essential change to take place in one's life because of the use of the name, but stressed that the name was not a magical formula and could not be effective in the absence of Christian virtues. He wrote, "If you bear His name but possess not His power, it will be in vain that you bear His name."

The Didache, another second century Christian document, speaks of baptism "into the name of the Lord" but also speaks of baptism "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Some conclude that the Didache recognizes both formulas as valid. We must not overlook the possibility of interpolations, for while scholars have variously dated the Didache from A.D. 120 to 200 the only existing Greek manuscript of it dates to 1056. Moreover, it teaches other nonbiblical practices relative to baptism such as pouring as an alternative to immersion, fasting before baptism, and triple immersion.

Most scholars assert that Justin Martyr's First Apology, written around A.D. 150, contains the oldest historical reference to the trine formula. Here is the key phrase, which describes baptized persons: "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water." We should note, however, that Justin did not recite the modern trinitarian formula but explicitly included the name Jesus, probably in deference to older practice.

Justin taught that Jesus was a subordinate, second being created by God the Father and did not clearly distinguish the Holy Spirit as a third person. Consequently, it is no great comfort for trinitarians to find evidence of their formula in his writings. In fact, the modern doctrine of the trinity did not become dominant until the councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381). Just because one man in A.D. 150, who did not believe in the full deity of Christ, referred to a baptismal formula similar to the modern trinitarian one does not mean all or even most in his day had abandoned the older Jesus' name formula. Evidence for general usage of the modern trinitarian formula at this early date is not as decisive as some have indicated.

History records a possible reference to Jesus Name baptism shortly after Justin's time. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, wrote, "We are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord." His last major work, however, describes a baptismal formula that was apparently the same as Justin's.

Closely associated with the baptismal formula is the doctrine of the Godhead. The early post-apostolic fathers, such as Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Hermas, were certainly not trinitarians. They basically believed in one God and in Jesus as God manifested in flesh. It is hardly surprising, then, to find no reference in their writings to a trinitarian baptismal formula.

The so-called "heretic" Marcion broke away from the Catholic Church during this time, and his followers preserved the older baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ." The Acts of Paul and Thecla, written by an Asiatic presbyter in the second century, gives an account of baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ."

Third Century
Significantly, we still find references to baptism in Jesus' name long after Justin's time. In the third century, a debate arose over the validity of baptism performed by "heretics." Stephen, Bishop of Rome (Roman Catholics consider him a pope), held such baptism to be valid, while the North African theologian Cyprian held it was not. In opposing Stephen, Cyprian discussed the case of "heretics" who baptized in the name of Jesus. He asked, "Can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ be judged to have obtained remission of sins?" He argued that the Jews in Acts properly received baptism in the name of Jesus only because they already acknowledged the Father, but that Gentiles who did not acknowledge the Father must be baptized in the full trinity.

"How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" Cyprian further argued that heretics deny the Father and blaspheme Him, so baptism in the name of Jesus only cannot save them.

Cyprian's opponents argued that Jesus' name baptism was always valid, even if performed by heretics, because of the power in the name of Jesus. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote to Cyprian in 256. He quoted Stephen as saying that "the name of Christ is of great advantage to faith and the sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever is baptized in the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ."

Cyprian responded to Stephen's view as follows: If this were so then heretics could also receive the Holy Spirit simply by laying on hands and invoking the name of Jesus. This would mean they would be born of the water and Spirit and so would be true Christians, even though they were outside the Catholic Church. Cyprian argued that this could not be correct. Just as the name Jesus could not impart the Holy Spirit outside the Catholic Church, so baptism in the name of Jesus only was not valid outside the Church:

"If they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit?" Historians conclude from these writings that many in Cyprian's day used the Jesus' name formula, and that probably Stephen allowed the formula. Some believe that even Cyprian accepted this baptism as long as the Catholic Church performed it and the trinity was not denied. In any case, the whole debate demonstrates that many people practiced baptism in Jesus' name during the third century A.D.

Striking verification comes from A Treatise on Re-Baptism by An Anonymous Writer. Some scholars believe the author was a fourth century monk named Ursinus, but most believe he was a bishop in the third century who opposed Cyprian. The treatise discusses what should be done about persons "who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" and who turn from their heresy to the Catholic Church. It concludes that rebaptism is not necessary: "Heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

The author makes a number of interesting points in his discussion: (1) His position had the support of "the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition" and "the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops." (2) "The power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism… affords to him… no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation," citing Acts 4:12 and Philippians 2:9-11. (3) The "invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised." (4) The invocation of Jesus' name alone does not bring salvation to the heretic, but if he corrects his error, acknowledges the truth, and receives the Holy Ghost, then it becomes effective; the heretic does not "lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus." (5) This teaching does not contradict Matthew 28:19. (6) Not only were heretics baptized by "invoking the name of the Lord Jesus," but many people, both "Jews and Gentiles, fully believing as they ought, are in like manner baptized."

TO BE CONTINUED...

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

Fourth Century
Even after the Council of Nicea, we find mention of Jesus' name baptism, which indicates that it was still a live issue. Ambrose (340-398), although a trinitarian, apparently held it to be valid on the ground that baptism in the name of one person of the trinity is the same as baptism in the name of the whole trinity. An editor's footnote says, "This passage has given rise to the question whether St. Ambrose taught, as some others certainly did (probably on his authority) that baptism in the Name of Christ alone, without mention of the other persons is valid."

The Council of Constantinople in 381 specifically condemned Sabellian baptism, which it described as prevalent in Galatia. A fourth or fifth century addition to the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles condemns those who perform only "one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ" and requires all baptism to be performed by three immersions in the trinitarian formula. An Eastern variant of this passage further links the single immersion into Christ with modalism. Therefore, it insists that the baptismal candidate be taught that the Father or the Holy Spirit did not come in flesh and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

The Medieval Age
The church in Constantinople condemned Sabellian baptism in a letter to Antioch around 450, the Justinian Code of 529 (Byzantine Empire) declared the death penalty for both Antitrinitarianism and rebaptism, the Council of Constantinople in 553 again condemned Sabellian baptism, and Martin Damiun (died 579), bishop of Braga, condemned Sabellian baptism for "retaining single immersion under a single name."

Bede (673-735) of England accepted the validity of baptism in Jesus' name based on the reasoning attributed to Ambrose, as did the Council of Frejus (792) and Pope Nicholas I (858-867). Other medieval writers who mentioned the Jesus Name formula were Peter Lombard (died 1160), Hugo Victor (died 1141), and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

From this evidence we conclude; (1) Throughout church history some people were acquainted with the Jesus Name formula. (2) Many theologians regarded it as valid. (3) Since it reappears repeatedly as an issue, people in various ages apparently maintained the practice.

The Reformation Era Forward
Martin Luther encountered a dispute over the Jesus Name formula in his day. Many sixteenth and seventeenth century Antitrinitarians baptized in Jesus' name. For example, in 1572 George Schomann was baptized in "the name of Christ." Thomas Edwards of England wrote in 1646 about some "heretics" who taught that baptism using the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was a "man-made tradition and that Christian baptism was "only in the name of Jesus Christ." In the nineteenth century many of the Plymouth Brethren, as well as some other English groups, taught on the authority of Acts 2:38 that baptism should be in the name of Jesus only.

Oneness Believers Throughout History
Throughout history many have affirmed the doctrine of Oneness (the belief in one God with no distinction of persons, who came in flesh as Jesus). Since these Oneness believers denied the trinity, we assume most baptized in Jesus' name, although historical records usually are silent on the subject. Below is a brief list of nontrinitarians recorded in history who believed in the deity of Jesus and probably baptized in His name.

(1) Ante-Nicene era: The post-apostolic fathers (including Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hermas, Ignatius), possibly Irenaeus, some Montanists, Noetus, Praxeas, Epigonus, Cleomenes, probably the Roman bishops Callistus and Zephyrinus, "the majority of believers" in Tertullian's day, Sabellius.

(2) Nicene era: Marcellus of Ancyra, Photinus, Commodian, Priscillian, Sabellians.

(3) Medieval era: Sabellians, Priscillianists, possibly unknown "heretics."

(4) Reformation era: Michael Servetus (whose doctrine was known to Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin and who was burned at the stake with Calvin's approval), Emmanuel Swedenborg (who recognized the error of the trinity but taught some unusual, nonbiblical doctrines), some Anabaptists, many antitrinitarians, William Penn and many early Quakers.

(5) Nineteenth century: John Clowes (England), John Miller (U.S.), some New England Congregationalists.

(6) Twentieth century: Oneness Pentecostals, some Sabbatarians, some charismatics.

Twentieth Century
This century has seen a great revival of baptism in the name of Jesus. The modern Pentecostal movement began on January 1, 1901, and its first leader, Charles Parham, began to baptize in the name of Jesus as early as 1901 or 1902. He reasoned as follows: Since baptism identifies us with Christ's death and burial and since Jesus Christ is the only One who died for us, we should be baptized in Jesus' name.

The noted Pentecostal evangelist Andrew Urshan began to baptize in Jesus' name as early as 1910. Beginning in 1913, the doctrines of baptism in Jesus' name and the Oneness of God began to sweep across the North American Pentecostal movement under the leadership of Frank Ewart, R. E. McAlister, Glenn Cook, and others. Each case (Parham, Urshan, the 1913 revival) was independent of the others. Each began with prayerful Bible study and a specific experience in which God gave illumination of His Word.

In 1915 Andrew Urshan brought the Pentecostal message to Russia, where some of his converts asked him to baptize them in Jesus' name, not knowing that Urshan and others had already seen this truth. This began the Pentecostal movement in that land. A few years later, a group of Chinese Christians began to teach Oneness and baptism in Jesus' name based solely on their reading of the Bible, not realizing that anyone else in the world believed it. In 1917 they organized the True Jesus Church, which exists in Communist China and Taiwan today.

Many prominent leaders in the early Pentecostal movement were baptized in Jesus' name, including: A. H. Argue, Frank Bartleman (Azusa Street participant and historian), E. N. Bell (one of two organizers of the Assemblies of God and its first General Chairman), William Booth-Clibborn, Glenn Cook, A. G. Garr, Frank Ewart (early associate of William Durham and prominent revivalist), Howard Goss (one of two organizers of the Assemblies of God and one of its executive presbyters), L. C. Hall, G. T. Haywood (prominent black leader), B. F. Lawrence, Harry van Loon, R. E. McAlister (prominent evangelist), Aimee Semple McPherson, D. C. O. Opperman (an executive presbyter in the Assemblies of God), and H. G. Rodgers.

Bell later abandoned Jesus Name baptism under pressure from trinitarian colleagues, as did Aimee McPherson, who subsequently founded the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, and R. G. Hoekstra, who has achieved financial success with his "Chaplain Ray" radio broadcast.

Bell's story is particularly interesting. At first he rejected what he called "The Sad New Issue," but then he was baptized in Jesus' name, giving three reasons why: (1) God had dealt with him personally about it for some time; (2) God took away every other message in his preaching until he would obey; and (3) this is what the apostles taught and practiced.

Bell revealed his rebaptism in a powerful article entitled "Who is Jesus Christ?" but prior to publication the Assemblies of God deleted many parts of it, including the fact of his rebaptism. The article expressed his "brand new vision" of who Jesus really was and the intense emotional experience that accompanied his new understanding and baptism. Eventually, however, Bell suppressed his new baptismal practice in order to maintain fellowship with the Assemblies of God, and in 1920 he became General Chairman a second time.

The position of the Assemblies of God on this issue is also very interesting. In 1915 the group accepted Jesus Name baptism as valid. A short time later it highly recommended a compromise formula that included both the words of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. Finally, in 1916 it rejected the Jesus Name formula, requiring all to accept use of the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

All but one of the Assemblies of God preachers in Louisiana accepted Jesus Name baptism as did almost all the early Canadian Pentecostal leaders, including the founders of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. However, in 1919 the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada renounced Oneness, accepted trinitarianism, and affiliated with the Assemblies of God.

In all, approximately twenty-five percent of American Pentecostals believe in Oneness and baptize in the name of Jesus. In addition, some trinitarian Pentecostals baptize in Jesus' name, including: (1) Bethel Temple and Bible School in Seattle, founded by W. H. Offiler; (2) The Pentecostal Church of Indonesia, which resulted from missionary efforts by that group; (3) Bethesda Missionary Temple in Detroit, pastored by James Lee Beall; and (4) Gospel Temple and Northern California Bible College, led by Ernest Gentile. Many modern charismatics have begun to baptize in Jesus' name, including some in the Maranatha Campus Ministries, which exists on more than sixty college campuses. There are approximately fifteen to twenty small Sabbath-keeping groups (apparently non-Pentecostal) that teach Oneness and baptize in Jesus' name.

Conclusion
Baptism in the name of Jesus has evidently existed throughout church history and is now enjoying a great revival.

END.

[Aquila]

Having some Quaker heritage, I found references to the early Quakers rather interesting, so I highlighted them. lol

But is this presentation of Acts 2:38 down through history accurate?

[Originalist]

Having some Quaker heritage, I found references to the early Quakers rather interesting, so I highlighted them. lol

But is this presentation of Acts 2:38 down through history accurate?

The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers speak much about invoking the name of Jesus in baptism. The problem is, they believed in baptismal regeneration. In other words, they believed that much more than the forgiveness of sins happened in baptism. They believe regeneration also took place, a teaching rejected by the UPCI.

But again, while it is certainly customary to verbally announce by whose authority you do something, that verbal announcement itself is not the authority. The authority already exists and is already possessed by the one announcing it. If I say "by the authority vested in me by our Lord Jesus Christ, I now baptize you in order that your sins may be forgiven", I'm not saying my verbal announcement somehow remitted the person's sins. God is forgiving their sins because of their profession of faith, baptism being a part of that.

[Aquila]

The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers speak much about invoking the name of Jesus in baptism. The problem is, they believed in baptismal regeneration. In other words, they believed that much more than the forgiveness of sins happened in baptism. They believe regeneration also took place, a teaching rejected by the UPCI.

But again, while it is certainly customary to verbally announce by whose authority you do something, that verbal announcement itself is not the authority. The authority already exists and is already possessed by the one announcing it. If I say "by the authority vested in me by our Lord Jesus Christ, I now baptize you in order that your sins may be forgiven", I'm not saying my verbal announcement somehow remitted the person's sins. God is forgiving their sins because of their profession of faith, baptism being a part of that.

I'll have to look up details on their beliefs concerning baptismal regeneration. What is of relevance to me is their recognition of Jesus name baptism.

During the Nicene era it is said that Marcellus of Ancyra, Photinus, Commodian, Priscillian, and Sabellians practiced Jesus name baptism. The article proposes that during the Medieval era Sebellians, Priscillianists, and other known "heretics" practiced Jesus name baptism. And from the Reformation era forward we see it among the likes of Michael Servetus, Emmanuel Swedenborg, some Anabaptists, other antitrinitarians, and even William Penn and early Quakers practiced Jesus name baptism. Continuing with the likes of John Clowes, John Miller, and New England Congregationalists. All of these leading up to the 20th Century revivals of Jesus name baptism.

Is this historically accurate is my question. Because if it is... that would be very important to analyzing my conclusions of the Gospel in relation to the context of history.

[Originalist]

I'll have to look up details on their beliefs concerning baptismal regeneration. What is of relevance to me is their recognition of Jesus name baptism.

During the Nicene era it is said that Marcellus of Ancyra, Photinus, Commodian, Priscillian, and Sabellians practiced Jesus name baptism. The article proposes that during the Medieval era Sebellians, Priscillianists, and other known "heretics" practiced Jesus name baptism. And from the Reformation era forward we see it among the likes of Michael Servetus, Emmanuel Swedenborg, some Anabaptists, other antitrinitarians, and even William Penn and early Quakers practiced Jesus name baptism. Continuing with the likes of John Clowes, John Miller, and New England Congregationalists. All of these leading up to the 20th Century revivals of Jesus name baptism.

Is this historically accurate is my question. Because if it is... that would be very important to analyzing my conclusions of the Gospel in relation to the context of history.


There is no doubt that the name of Jesus Christ was used in baptism, but in the context I stated in my previous post. "By the authority vested in me by our Lord Jesus Christ, I now baptize you in order that your sins may be forgiven".

[Aquila]

I found this interesting. Talking about William Penn, early Quaker and founder of the state of Pennsylvania, it was written:


Penn denied that the word Trinity appeared anywhere in the Bible. Penn denied that there were three distinct persons, or three distinct substances, but rather preached that the Father, Word, and Spirit being one spirit, as the scripture states. The Trinity is clearly an invention of the early Roman sect, (see footnote to 1 John 5:7), rather trivial in consequence, by man trying to understand and define the relationship of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, which can only be understood by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Source: http://hallvworthington.com/Penn/Answers.html

[Aquila]

There is no doubt that the name of Jesus Christ was used in baptism, but in the context I stated in my previous post. "By the authority vested in me by our Lord Jesus Christ, I now baptize you in order that your sins may be forgiven".

I don't think you're aware of previous conversations I've had on this. With EB I differed with him because I was not aware of any evidence after the first and second centuries wherein anyone practiced Acts 2:38 as we do until the 20th century. My argument is that this creates a "gap" in which Satan successfully darkened the light of the Gospel. I couldn't embrace such a notion. However, I assured him that if I could find a solid witness of the truth down through history, I'd be more than willing to agree with him.

If what this illustrates beyond the second century is true... I've found the witness I asked for.

[n david]

I don't think you're aware of previous conversations I've had on this. With EB I differed with him because I was not aware of any evidence after the first and second centuries wherein anyone practiced Acts 2:38 as we do until the 20th century. My argument is that this creates a "gap" in which Satan successfully darkened the light of the Gospel. I couldn't embrace such a notion. However, I assured him that if I could find a solid witness of the truth down through history, I'd be more than willing to agree with him.

If what this illustrates beyond the second century is true... I've found the witness I asked for.
smh

[Aquila]

smh

Why are you shaking your head?

If I had an "agenda" I certainly wouldn't post something that entertained that I could be mistaken or anything that would contradict my view.

If all one wants is the truth... would they not entertain that they could be wrong? Would they not continue to dig until they found verification of their beliefs or until they had examined the data and found that their beliefs were historically untenable?

I imagined that you would look more deeply into this with me, assisting me, and perhaps helping me come to understand your side.

But by just shaking your head... it appears we know who has the agenda vs. who is seriously trying to find the truth.

[n david]

Why are you shaking your head?
I'm shaking my head because I find it difficult to believe a Oneness A/P really believes there was an 1,800 year gap where "God failed, hell prevailed," simply because they can't find it written in historical documents.

The evidence is in the promise of 2:39. The evidence is there being millions of oneness, new birth believers throughout modern history.

I don't need historical records to prove that the biblical plan of salvation never changed from Acts thru today.

I believe the Bible. I have faith in the Bible as the Word of God.

[Aquila]

I'm shaking my head because I find it difficult to believe a Oneness A/P really believes there was an 1,800 year gap where "God failed, hell prevailed," simply because they can't find it written in historical documents.

It has to do with intellectual honesty. Looking at a void in history and insisting that something did exist during that time is worse than seeing the void and admitting that indicators are that it didn't.

The evidence is in the promise of 2:39. The evidence is there being millions of oneness, new birth believers throughout modern history.

I see what you're saying. However, to do so insists that we have to put blinders on and insist that our interpretation is correct and then profess something there is absolutely no evidence for.

I don't need historical records to prove that the biblical plan of salvation never changed from Acts thru today.

And to me, that kind of blind adherence to dogma is scary. Because if you are in error, you'd never want to know or be open to correction. My position is, if the proclamation is true, evidence will be found. And it looks like I've found something that points that direction. What I find sad is... you guys... the guys who hold this position... couldn't provide such information. In your blind adherence to dogma... you couldn't provide an answer. You couldn't back it up. You couldn't stand and deliver. But me, one who was critical of your position, searched and perhaps even confirmed your beliefs. In your "Bible only" approach, you'd have had a soul hanging in the balance and no answer to back up your interpretation. For a truth as important as this... I'd have imagined you would have already been rock solid in providing the information necessary to back up what you were merely assuming. That leaves me shaking my head.

I believe the Bible. I have faith in the Bible as the Word of God.

I believe the Bible too. But I also believe that if a given interpretation is true, especially one as important as this, it is demonstrable in history. To close one's eyes and refuse to even study it out is preposterous. It fails to deliver a reason for the hope that we hold. It fails to validate our faith and convictions historically.

In short, interpretations of the Bible are a dime a dozen. Don't believe me? Consider that there are nearly 40,000 denominations of Christianity. So, in my opinion, your interpretation without anything to back it up becomes no more authoritative than that of any other. But, if what I found is indeed true... we can say with solid assurance that Acts 2:38 has always been believed by antitrinitarians historically down through the ages, without a single "gap" of history wherein man wasn't provided a witness to the truth.

And... by the looks of it... much of traditional Christian history and doctrine is a "response" to this truth. In essence, if what is written here is true... there would be no such Christian history, charges of heresy, persecutions, or denunciations without the Apostolic truth down through the ages.

From my perspective, I'd like to say... Shame on you for not being able to provide an adequate defense of the Acts 2:38 message with at least some shred of information which I've posted above. And this is coming from one who has a rather vehement critic of your position. I had to do your homework for you and seek to correct myself, with an open mind assuming that I could be in error. Why you, a solid defender of such a position couldn't provide the information is beyond me.

*smh*

[Aquila]

I'm also finding scattered references of Medieval Arians who baptized in Jesus name and provided shelter to other antitrinitarian Monarchian (Oneness) groups. They proliferated the Gothic Bible, a translation that was considered to challenge various Trinitarian notions of the Latin Bibles of their time. Not to mention early Celtic missionaries who appear to have practiced baptism in the name of Jesus prior to the arrival of the Catholics. It appears that they took the Acts 2:38 message to Languedoc, Flanders, Frisia and Saxony.

I'm going to have to do a lot of cross referencing to verify because these little snippets of information are peppered throughout various historical works. But it leaves the door wide open to reveal quite a witness to the truth down through history.

[Amanah]

I'm also finding scattered references of Medieval Arians who baptized in Jesus name and provided shelter to other antitrinitarian Monarchian (Oneness) groups. They proliferated the Gothic Bible, a translation that was considered to challenge various Trinitarian notions of the Latin Bibles of their time. Not to mention early Celtic missionaries who appear to have practiced baptism in the name of Jesus prior to the arrival of the Catholics. It appears that they took the Acts 2:38 message to Languedoc, Flanders, Frisia and Saxony.

I'm going to have to do a lot of cross referencing to verify because these little snippets of information are peppered throughout various historical works. But it leaves the door wide open to reveal quite a witness to the truth down through history.

you said you wanted to write a book.

[n david]

It has to do with intellectual honesty. Looking at a void in history and insisting that something did exist during that time is worse than seeing the void and admitting that indicators are that it didn't.
If the wind blows, but the weather channel doesn't mention it, did it really happen?

And to me, that kind of blind adherence to dogma is scary. Because if you are in error, you'd never want to know or be open to correction. My position is, if the proclamation is true, evidence will be found. And it looks like I've found something that points that direction.

What I find sad is... you guys... the guys who hold this position... couldn't provide such information. In your blind adherence to dogma... you couldn't provide an answer. You couldn't back it up. You couldn't stand and deliver. But me, one who was critical of your position, searched and perhaps even confirmed your beliefs. In your "Bible only" approach, you'd have had a soul hanging in the balance and no answer to back up your interpretation. For a truth as important as this... I'd have imagined you would have already been rock solid in providing the information necessary to back up what you were merely assuming. That leaves me shaking my head.
What are you talking about? I won't speak for EB, but personally it wasn't that I couldn't back it up; it's that I don't rely on historical records to affirm my faith is right. I don't need historical record to prove that the Gospel preached in Acts lasted thru today. My faith is in the Bible as God's Word, not what some man wrote in a historical record.

Do you believe in Creation or evolution? Because scientists would claim their "facts" prove evolution and that the Bible is the only source which Creationists point to as proof of Creationism. So it must be hard for you to believe in Creation since there is little else than the Bible which proves it.

I believe the Bible too. But I also believe that if a given interpretation is true, especially one as important as this, it is demonstrable in history. To close one's eyes and refuse to even study it out is preposterous. It fails to deliver a reason for the hope that we hold. It fails to validate our faith and convictions historically.
My faith isn't validated by man's historical record. What part of this do you not understand? Faith is faith. It is not something which is dependent on historical record or man's say so. Faith is in God alone and trusting His Word is true. It's "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

But, if what I found is indeed true... we can say with solid assurance that Acts 2:38 has always been believed by antitrinitarians historically down through the ages, without a single "gap" of history wherein man wasn't provided a witness to the truth.
I'm happy you were able to find something on the internet to help you believe that the Bible is true.

From my perspective, I'd like to say... Shame on you for not being able to provide an adequate defense of the Acts 2:38 message with at least some shred of information which I've posted above. And this is coming from one who has a rather vehement critic of your position. I had to do your homework for you and seek to correct myself, with an open mind assuming that I could be in error. Why you, a solid defender of such a position couldn't provide the information is beyond me.
Again, it's not that I "couldn't," rather that I don't feel the need to defend Acts 2:38 to someone who claims to be a Oneness A/P!

Good God in Zion! (as EB would say)

[Evang.Benincasa]

It has to do with intellectual honesty. Looking at a void in history and insisting that something did exist during that time is worse than seeing the void and admitting that indicators are that it didn't.



I see what you're saying. However, to do so insists that we have to put blinders on and insist that our interpretation is correct and then profess something there is absolutely no evidence for.



And to me, that kind of blind adherence to dogma is scary. Because if you are in error, you'd never want to know or be open to correction. My position is, if the proclamation is true, evidence will be found. And it looks like I've found something that points that direction. What I find sad is... you guys... the guys who hold this position... couldn't provide such information. In your blind adherence to dogma... you couldn't provide an answer. You couldn't back it up. You couldn't stand and deliver. But me, one who was critical of your position, searched and perhaps even confirmed your beliefs. In your "Bible only" approach, you'd have had a soul hanging in the balance and no answer to back up your interpretation. For a truth as important as this... I'd have imagined you would have already been rock solid in providing the information necessary to back up what you were merely assuming. That leaves me shaking my head.



I believe the Bible too. But I also believe that if a given interpretation is true, especially one as important as this, it is demonstrable in history. To close one's eyes and refuse to even study it out is preposterous. It fails to deliver a reason for the hope that we hold. It fails to validate our faith and convictions historically.

In short, interpretations of the Bible are a dime a dozen. Don't believe me? Consider that there are nearly 40,000 denominations of Christianity. So, in my opinion, your interpretation without anything to back it up becomes no more authoritative than that of any other. But, if what I found is indeed true... we can say with solid assurance that Acts 2:38 has always been believed by antitrinitarians historically down through the ages, without a single "gap" of history wherein man wasn't provided a witness to the truth.

And... by the looks of it... much of traditional Christian history and doctrine is a "response" to this truth. In essence, if what is written here is true... there would be no such Christian history, charges of heresy, persecutions, or denunciations without the Apostolic truth down through the ages.

From my perspective, I'd like to say... Shame on you for not being able to provide an adequate defense of the Acts 2:38 message with at least some shred of information which I've posted above. And this is coming from one who has a rather vehement critic of your position. I had to do your homework for you and seek to correct myself, with an open mind assuming that I could be in error. Why you, a solid defender of such a position couldn't provide the information is beyond me.

*smh*

Well, I see you got a breather, and now we can start where we left off.

Why aren't you Eastern Orthodox?

If History can negate anything found in the text of scripture. Then you have two choices, one Eastern Orthodoxy, or (where it looks like you are headed) Atheism.

Oh, one more, Hinduism.

Its history is documented, pretty well I might add. :)

Throw a little funeral pyor ash into your hair and beard. Wrap yourself naked in a blanket sitting by a fire, and beg for food. Bro, we got HISTORY for you! :happydance

[Aquila]

Well, I see you got a breather, and now we can start where we left off.

Why aren't you Eastern Orthodox?

If History can negate anything found in the text of scripture. Then you have two choices, one Eastern Orthodoxy, or (where it looks like you are headed) Atheism.

Oh, one more, Hinduism.

Its history is documented, pretty well I might add. :)

Throw a little funeral pyor ash into your hair and beard. Wrap yourself naked in a blanket sitting by a fire, and beg for food. Bro, we got HISTORY for you! :happydance

You still don't get it.

You're so narrow minded you don't care about how anyone else thinks, feels, or desires that claims be validated.

Everyone has an interpretation of the Bible. And the more crazy the claim, the more we should desire to see it backed up. Because without anything to back it up, your interpretation is just a pathetic as anyone else's.

When someone tells me that it doesn't matter if no one believed in Acts 2:38 down through the ages, because the Bible held the truth all along, it allows for a gap of history in which no soul was saved. It allows for the Gospel to have been a whopping failure for nearly 2,000 years. I can't embrace that kind of thinking. Right or wrong, I can't do it. I can't see the Gospel being that pathetic of a failure. I think it even insults the nature of God. With some evidence that this message was indeed present throughout the ages, I can actually take a deep breath and relax.

I told you, I'm a big softy. I'm not as hard as you are. But I will say this. You had me considering how anemically pathetic this interpretation was and how incapable it was to endure and be a light to men for nearly 2,000 years. Not because I "needed" history to validate it. But because I needed to know it wasn't such an abysmal failure. Because if God proved incapable of providing the light of truth for men throughout all those centuries... He is certainly incapable of saving you or me.

Try to accept that not everyone thinks like you. Some of us have rather rigorous processes of examination that we must go through to feel at peace with an idea.

I look at it this way... if no one else believed the way you interpret the text until the 20th century... it's a private interpretation. Something fringe and cultic to be rejected.

[RachelRose]

Great study.

I have always had UPCI preachers just brush off my questions about the gap by saying; "sure Miss, there always was Jesus Name people, we just never saw them."

Dang, so during the Dark Ages when the catholic church was shredding people for owning even one Bible verse the good guys were just hiding out? It seems wrong.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You still don't get it.

No Chris, its you who doesn't get it. Validation through evidence outside of the Bible? My old man the Atheist extraordinaire. Would get a gleam in his eye, with eyebrow raised high when individuals spoke like you. What would follow would be series of questions which were lined up to lead you to admitting that what you believed in was as false as a rubber chicken.

Why? Because the Bible being the anchor, the shield, the sword, the armor, was now being laid aside.To leave you wide open to answer questions where Google couldn't save you. My lands, Christianity stands and falls on the Bible, and looking through history as a life line? Well, sunny Jim, time to pucker up and kiss some icons and bishop rings! Oooh, but even more historical data, are those barefoot gurus, wrapped in blankets, bow down and kiss the dirty wrinkled feet of the guru. History is rife with the historic evidence of the Hindu cast system. Pastoral authority? My my, a Swami, a Guru, are sometimes called Maharaji or Babji, meaning father, or king. In sanskrit far more ancient and documented than Christianity the Guru holds authority over his devotees far beyond that of Christian priests or pastors. The Guru (depending upon his asceticism) is higher than god. No, Chris, the Bible is primary source evidence that's how historians work, also detective work. The Bible documents are the first witness, you have to destroy them in order to come up with another source of reference being "history?"



You're so narrow minded you don't care about how anyone else thinks, feels, or desires that claims be validated.

If I had a dollar for everytime pyschological projection is used by a poster I would be wealthy. Chris, it is you who is narrow minded, you want us to believe that Medieval mud farmers had salvation from their beliefs in some combination of Druid Mythology mingled with Roman Catholicism? Madame Blavatsky would be proud of you. These Medieval serfs and illiterate monks all going to heaven because they accepted Christ as their personal savior? Because that's what this brouhaha really all comes down to? Correct? No one needs a BIBLE? Why did Jesus even send out ministry? Why did Paul write instructional epistles if this all was supposedly swallowed up with the sands of time? The Bible is the anvil, and you my boy is just another hammer, waiting to be worn away in your unbelief.


Everyone has an interpretation of the Bible. And the more crazy the claim, the more we should desire to see it backed up. Because without anything to back it up, your interpretation is just a pathetic as anyone else's.

Yet, we don't go to history books, we go to the Bible. REFORMISTS went to the Bible, to find out that the Western and Eastern Roman Churches were pagan inspired. That the papacy and patriarches absorbed rituals, and pagan myth into their form of Christianity. The Bible, Chris, we go to the Rock, not to the sand.


When someone tells me that it doesn't matter if no one believed in Acts 2:38 down through the ages, because the Bible held the truth all along, it allows for a gap of history in which no soul was saved. It allows for the Gospel to have been a whopping failure for nearly 2,000 years. I can't embrace that kind of thinking. Right or wrong, I can't do it. I can't see the Gospel being that pathetic of a failure. I think it even insults the nature of God. With some evidence that this message was indeed present throughout the ages, I can actually take a deep breath and relax.

Chris, this is more of your emotional pleading, which becomes so dramatic that you hope we take notice. But, forget it, the Bible is the foundation the words which gives us instruction. If William Tyndale, or John Wycliffe would read our postings back and forth. They would rebuke you, not me. Because while you want us to sit naked in ashes waiting for some archeological find, they understood the Bible to be the only key to lead all men to salvation. Even if they didn't find it themselves. At least they tried, instead of giving everyone around them some teary eyed soppy wet drama.



I told you, I'm a big softy. I'm not as hard as you are. But I will say this. You had me considering how anemically pathetic this interpretation was and how incapable it was to endure and be a light to men for nearly 2,000 years. Not because I "needed" history to validate it. But because I needed to know it wasn't such an abysmal failure. Because if God proved incapable of providing the light of truth for men throughout all those centuries... He is certainly incapable of saving you or me.

Well, my boy, God isn't a softy, and therefore this is the reason you deem Him unrighteous.. Is a man more righteous than God? Well, Chris, you sure seem to build a case that if God doesn't excuse a group in Borneo for not being baptized He is unrighteous, and unmerciful. Joseph Smith needed to figure out how to work the American Indians into salvation, and he did by putting them into His book as Lamanites. Yet, Bahai Faith and Sri Rama Krishna taught that all rivers of religion lead to salvation and everlasting bliss. Your problem now becomes more than seeking historical evidence. You are now Bibleless, and now must deal with how does God save those who have no opportunity to hear the Gospel? People are born everyday, die everyday, in areas where the Bible may even be available but unable to be referenced. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, parts of Pakistan, and India. Not to mention other locations of the far east. Your doctrine of sincerely believe and go to heaven is a question begging doctrine.


Try to accept that not everyone thinks like you. Some of us have rather rigorous processes of examination that we must go through to feel at peace with an idea.

Chris, but you have no process of examination, other than your emotional pleadings. Bro, again, why aren't you an Eastern Orthodox? Why aren't you a Hindu? Don't ever talk to Rabbi Tovia Singer, because you will end up losing. But, I don't believe you even have a side, or any skin in this game. Ndavid noticed it well, and I have believed this for a while. You just like to rip wings off the ecclesiastical flies in the room. Burning the Apostolic Pentecostal ants under your magnifying glass. One minute you agree with us, and then shapeshift into the devil's advocate to watch how the kiddies play. I feel for you bro, but as time goes on, we shall see. I hope you make it.


I look at it this way... if no one else believed the way you interpret the text until the 20th century... it's a private interpretation. Something fringe and cultic to be rejected.

Bro, then you are in a bigger pickle, because you go all the way back to the Bible and tell us that some portions of time it was GONE. Dude, you are the one who needs to prove his case. Because Christian history as it has been recorded doesn't have your doctrine anywhere. Would you like me to quote Eastern and Western Roman church fathers, papacy, and clerics? They believed there was NO SALVATION outside of the Roman Church. You are alone my boy, no Bible, no historical evidence, just your emotional pleas.

[Aquila]

Great study.

I have always had UPCI preachers just brush off my questions about the gap by saying; "sure Miss, there always was Jesus Name people, we just never saw them."

Dang, so during the Dark Ages when the catholic church was shredding people for owning even one Bible verse the good guys were just hiding out? It seems wrong.

Well, there are different personality types. Some are hardwired to judge believe whatever you tell them. Others are not. It's just the way it is. EB and many others are hardwired to find it easy to believe whatever you tell them without any need of verification. They base their conclusions on the source. If they trust the source, they embrace it. If they don't... it can't possibly be true no matter who is demonstrating it or what evidence lays before them. It's dogma. It requires little thought. But at the same time, they provide some of the deepest contemplation of those things that they do embrace. Because, it's the only thing they know.

For example, EB's personality type can't even entertain the possibility of the existence of alien beings. lol He's been taught that the Scripture would have mentioned them, and since it doesn't (that his teachers were aware of), it is impossible for them to exist... in his mind.

Of course, the Bible didn't mention Native Americans or the New World either. Those of our personality type sees this and realizes that the doors of possibility remain as open for aliens as we see it was in retrospect for the native inhabitants and existence of the New World. For us, it would be the equivalent of Christopher Columbus coming ashore, only in this scenario, we're the Indians.

Other personality types can't embrace that kind of flexibility. They are essentially frozen in time, interpretation, and opinion.

And so, all one had to do is tell EB and those who think like him that there were always Jesus name people, and because they were trusted sources, and Scripture offered no contradiction, he can embrace it without question.

I will admit. It would sure be easier to be able to think like that. lol

[n david]

For example, EB's personality type can't even entertain the possibility of the existence of alien beings. lol He's been taught that the Scripture would have mentioned them, and since it doesn't (that his teachers were aware of), it is impossible for them to exist... in his mind.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/dreams.gif

[Aquila]

No Chris, its you who doesn't get it. Validation through evidence outside of the Bible?

Not outside of the Bible. Along side the Bible. You see, I see it like this... IF it is the truth, it will withstand scrutiny, questions, and study. And its claims will ultimately be verifiable, especially if they intersect with real world realities like culture and history.

From my perspective... you fear invalidation from considering history. I'm confident that if the interpretation of Scripture we hold is true, history will ultimately agree that it is no private interpretation and others will have had this interpretation among them down through the ages.

From your perspective... I need validation from history. You don't, because you're confident that the interpretation you hold is true regardless of any external evidence.

The problem is, your view insulates you from anything that would validate or contradict your chosen interpretation. Theologically, you're on your own little island. Nothing from the outside can shed any light on, or take away from, what you already know.

[Aquila]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/dreams.gif

You're so like Jesus. I wanna be like you when I grow up. lol

[Esaias]

Aquila, what groups throughout history have believed what you believe?

I am, of course, pretending that whatever you claim to believe is what you actually believe, although your prior statements in the other thread show that there is no reason to believe anything you say, anyway.

[Aquila]

What I find interesting is that I found details that causes me to pause and consider agreeing with them... evidence that could validate what they claim to believe... and instead of rubbing it in a little (because such is to be expected) and seeing my desire for truth, and my integrity with even producing details that contradicted my own understanding... they're still mocking and arguing with me. LOL!!!

They're Heaven is locked up tight from everyone... even those who come to realize the truth they profess to teach. LOL

[Esaias]

What I find interesting is that I found details that causes me to pause and consider agreeing with them... evidence that could validate what they claim to believe... and instead of rubbing it in a little (because such is to be expected) and seeing my desire for truth, and my integrity with even producing details that contradicted my own understanding... they're still mocking and arguing with me. LOL!!!

They're Heaven is locked up tight from everyone... even those who come to realize the truth they profess to teach. LOL

Nope. Rather, you destroyed your own credibility awhile back. You, sir, are a special case. :)

[Aquila]

Aquila, what groups throughout history have believed what you believe?

I am, of course, pretending that whatever you claim to believe is what you actually believe, although your prior statements in the other thread show that there is no reason to believe anything you say, anyway.

My belief, as previously stated, is that there couldn't be a gap of nearly 1800 years of no one saved, holding truth, having the light of the Gospel. I believe any Christian you find throughout history or who is alive today (from nearly any school of thought) would agree with that general belief.

But where my conviction was hard pressed was that history didn't appear to show anyone holding the Acts 2:38 understanding that we hold today. This would require God to move sovereignly, granting mercy on those few sincere souls who desired truth, but had no one to show them the way more perfectly, down through the ages.

What I'm saying in this thread is that it looks like I found evidence of individuals (and perhaps groups) who actually believed as we do, at least as it relates to there being one God and Jesus name baptism, down through history.

Essentially, EB provided the notion that such people existed... even if we don't find evidence. But his thought process ended there. I've been investigating possibilities to flesh out his notion. Why? Because if I find evidence that those individuals and bodies existed... I will have no issue with agreeing with EB that indeed there were Acts 2:38 believers down through history.

Yes, I was looking for data to refute my own conclusion. And, if what is in the first three posts I've posted on this thread is true... I'm encouraged. But, I'm the guy with an agenda. ;) Of course, I'm seen in a bad light no matter what I say or do because they don't value inquiring minds. They only value mindless and obedient drones. lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well, there are different personality types. Some are hardwired to judge believe whatever you tell them. Others are not. It's just the way it is. EB and many others are hardwired to find it easy to believe whatever you tell them without any need of verification.

Chris, let the record stand that you believe the Bible not to be historical evidence. Also again, why aren't you Eastern Orthodox? Verification for the earliest reformists Desiderius Erasmus, and John Wycliffe, went to scripture not historical data.


They base their conclusions on the source.

The Bible


If they trust the source, they embrace it.

The Bible


If they don't... it can't possibly be true no matter who is demonstrating it or what evidence lays before them.

Eastern and Western Roman Church History and Hindu History.

Bro, put your icon where your mouth is :laffatu



It's dogma. It requires little thought. But at the same time, they provide some of the deepest contemplation of those things that they do embrace. Because, it's the only thing they know.

The Bible.

Chris remember when you wanted us to not believe the Bible alone, but our own personal experiences? At this point I would ask who hath bewitched you, but sadly you are as sober as a judge.



For example, EB's personality type can't even entertain the possibility of the existence of alien beings. lol He's been taught that the Scripture would have mentioned them, and since it doesn't (that his teachers were aware of), it is impossible for them to exist... in his mind.

Chris, why must you lie when you start losing the discussion? Please show a post where I posted that I don't believe in aliens due to no Bible evidence. i Don't believe in extraterrestrials because the possibility would be lower than zero. Carl Sagan called us the big blue marble, because our planet stands out from all others in our solar system. Why, because it teems with life. As you leave our solar system you enter the inhabitable zone and an asteroid belt which would destroy anything leaving or entering our system. The father you go out from our solar system the least the chances for life. Life may be on other planets, but its likeliness of being highly developed extremely low. People who claim they have been abducted by martians are liars, and story tellers. Michael Shermer has done a pretty good job debunking mostly all such stories of grays, greens, and Zoltron. So, Chris, you don't know what I believe, so let's continue with your doctrine of No Bible Needed for Salvation.


Of course, the Bible didn't mention Native Americans or the New World either. Those of our personality type sees this and realizes that the doors of possibility remain as open for aliens as we see it was in retrospect for the native inhabitants and existence of the New World. For us, it would be the equivalent of Christopher Columbus coming ashore, only in this scenario, we're the Indians.

But on the flip side of this emotional sleigh ride, did God sovereignty fail? How long did it take explorers "historically" speaking to reach the "new" world? Chris, can you answer how Chief Big Humming Bird was saved?



Other personality types can't embrace that kind of flexibility. They are essentially frozen in time, interpretation, and opinion.

Where did Paul and Jesus teach this "flexibility?

Oh, I know, Bible not allowed. Sad. Dude, this is sad.


And so, all one had to do is tell EB and those who think like him that there were always Jesus name people, and because they were trusted sources, and Scripture offered no contradiction, he can embrace it without question.

I will admit. It would sure be easier to be able to think like that. lol

Chris, this is why I don't accept your apologies.

Good luck with that, seriously, good luck, I hope you get it together.

[Aquila]

Chris, let the record stand that you believe the Bible not to be historical evidence. Also again, why aren't you Eastern Orthodox? Verification for the earliest reformists Desiderius Erasmus, and John Wycliffe, went to scripture not historical data.



The Bible



The Bible



Eastern and Western Roman Church History and Hindu History.

Bro, put your icon where your mouth is :laffatu




The Bible.

Chris remember when you wanted us to not believe the Bible alone, but our own personal experiences? At this point I would ask who hath bewitched you, but sadly you are as sober as a judge.




Chris, why must you lie when you start losing the discussion? Please show a post where I posted that I don't believe in aliens due to no Bible evidence. i Don't believe in extraterrestrials because the possibility would be lower than zero. Carl Sagan called us the big blue marble, because our planet stands out from all others in our solar system. Why, because it teems with life. As you leave our solar system you enter the inhabitable zone and an asteroid belt which would destroy anything leaving or entering our system. The father you go out from our solar system the least the chances for life. Life may be on other planets, but its likeliness of being highly developed extremely low. People who claim they have been abducted by martians are liars, and story tellers. Michael Shermer has done a pretty good job debunking mostly all such stories of grays, greens, and Zoltron. So, Chris, you don't know what I believe, so let's continue with your doctrine of No Bible Needed for Salvation.



But on the flip side of this emotional sleigh ride, did God sovereignty fail? How long did it take explorers "historically" speaking to reach the "new" world? Chris, can you answer how Chief Big Humming Bird was saved?




Where did Paul and Jesus teach this "flexibility?

Oh, I know, Bible not allowed. Sad. Dude, this is sad.



Chris, this is why I don't accept your apologies.

Good luck with that, seriously, good luck, I hope you get it together.

Really? You take yourself way to seriously.

[Aquila]

I'm a work in progress. I lay no claim to having it all figured out or having all my questions answered.

[Originalist]

I'm a work in progress. I lay no claim to having it all figured out or having all my questions answered.

Well buddy, if you don't have it figured out before death or rapture, off to hell you will go.

[Aquila]

Hey guys. Instead of ganging up to bash me, because it always takes a hand full of ya, why don't we conserve our energy and look at the original posts and examine the information. Is there anything contained in that article that you find interesting? Anything that provided some form of validation for you? Or perhaps is there something you'd call into question?

[Aquila]

Well buddy, if you don't have it figured out before death or rapture, off to hell you will go.

I assure you that I will not know all things and have everything figured out prior to the rapture. I'm human. If repentance, being baptized in His name, and being filled with the Holy Ghost isn't enough... I'm toast anyway. And agreeing with a single strict interpretation and pretending like I do know it all isn't going to help one bit.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You're so like Jesus. I wanna be like you when I grow up. lol

But that's just it Chris. We aren't your reference, because you sure as shootin aren't ours'. Listen, Chris, with what you believe you wouldn't of been able to win me when I was in the world. Bro, I had already been through the sinner's prayers. The ripped jeans and sandals of the Charismatic movement, complete with doctrine isn't necessary. The Bible means different things to different people. My old pap, would rear his head back in laughter! Screaming what a bunch of baloney! You are a softy? No, you are a product of the State, the 1980s Ecclesiastical Buy the World a Coke and Keep it Company. Has nothing to do with Christianity in any form. My lands, this counrty was started mostly by Puritans, who because of their predestination all those who couldn't live righteous were excommunicated the hard way. Baptists would preach it hotter than Hell. Roman priests like Padre Pio would smack your smile off your face if you believed another way. Yet, we in the 2000s are supposed to be ecumenical, and inclusive? Just have a sincere belief in a messiah figure and its good? Chris this No Bible Needed and In God's Hands doctrine is getting snowflaker by the post. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well buddy, if you don't have it figured out before death or rapture, off to hell you will go.

But, you don't even need to have it figured out. All you need is to believe.

Without a Bible it gets a little sketchy, but it seems you got it all figured out.

So, what exactly is salvation when a Bible is unavailable?

Originalist hasn't said he believes this but Chris, would you like to explain?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Hey guys. Instead of ganging up to bash me, because it always takes a hand full of ya, why don't we conserve our energy and look at the original posts and examine the information. Is there anything contained in that article that you find interesting? Anything that provided some form of validation for you? Or perhaps is there something you'd call into question?

Chris, I'm sorry, but you know what you do? Let's see if you recognize this, you make yourself the lighting rod. You may post something from the web, and ask us if we find it interesting. But then you take information which we have already been discussing in other threads and start to post them in a new thread. Why? because the new thread is part of an old discussion. Hence we end up posting the same arguments over and over again. But, you never answered my questions, what about those who never lost their Bibles? Those who lived in areas where vulgar Latin was still in use? Greek was still lingua franca? Your Googled history mostly speaks of a Western Christendom. Which your's and my ancestors were apart of. But my wife's ancestors were from the Eastern part which never migrated to the new world to conquer. That was Spanish, Italian, and English. Therefore the Western Northern portion of the Roman church didn't translate their liturgy into English, or their Bibles. So, you walk around thinking the Bible was extinct? Dark ages? Bro, what about those Latin liturgies? Greek liturgies, Latin, Greek, Spanish, Bibles?

[Scott Pitta]

As per the original post, I would suggest focussing on finding Oneness Pentecostals in the USA prior to 1913.

To the best of my knowledge, there are none in the USA prior to 1913.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I'm a work in progress. I lay no claim to having it all figured out or having all my questions answered.

Sweet Jesus, may God have mercy on my soul and help you.

Bro, I thank God I never met someone like you when I needed the Lord.

thank you JESUS for the Apostolic Pentecostal message!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Really? You take yourself way to seriously.

Chris, is it because your arguments cause more questions than they answer?

Bro, I just don't buy what you are peddling.

[Esaias]

My belief, as previously stated, is that there couldn't be a gap of nearly 1800 years of no one saved, holding truth, having the light of the Gospel. I believe any Christian you find throughout history or who is alive today (from nearly any school of thought) would agree with that general belief.

But where my conviction was hard pressed was that history didn't appear to show anyone holding the Acts 2:38 understanding that we hold today. This would require God to move sovereignly, granting mercy on those few sincere souls who desired truth, but had no one to show them the way more perfectly, down through the ages.

What I'm saying in this thread is that it looks like I found evidence of individuals (and perhaps groups) who actually believed as we do, at least as it relates to there being one God and Jesus name baptism, down through history.

Essentially, EB provided the notion that such people existed... even if we don't find evidence. But his thought process ended there. I've been investigating possibilities to flesh out his notion. Why? Because if I find evidence that those individuals and bodies existed... I will have no issue with agreeing with EB that indeed there were Acts 2:38 believers down through history.

Yes, I was looking for data to refute my own conclusion. And, if what is in the first three posts I've posted on this thread is true... I'm encouraged. But, I'm the guy with an agenda. ;) Of course, I'm seen in a bad light no matter what I say or do because they don't value inquiring minds. They only value mindless and obedient drones. lol

I cannot believe you misunderstood my question.

[Esaias]

As per the original post, I would suggest focussing on finding Oneness Pentecostals in the USA prior to 1913.

To the best of my knowledge, there are none in the USA prior to 1913.

I believe I have previously posted evidence of American Pentecostals baptizing in Jesus' name with a Oneness view prior to 1913. Also, of Pentecostals prior to 1913 believing the Pentecostal baptism was the receiving of the Spirit and NOT a "second, post regeneration" experience.

If I asked you "can you provide evidence of Americans speaking in tongues prior to 1905" could you do it? And if not, what conclusion(s) should be drawn?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I cannot believe you misunderstood my question.

You have to read his posts from the bottom up.

Yes, I was looking for data to refute my own conclusion. And, if what is in the first three posts I've posted on this thread is true... I'm encouraged. But, I'm the guy with an agenda. ;) Of course, I'm seen in a bad light no matter what I say or do because they don't value inquiring minds. They only value mindless and obedient drones. lol

One needs to ask who are the they? Inquiring minds are sincerely looking for truth. Chris has proven to us that isn't his goal, but only enjoys playing devil's advocate. Yet, when he gets cornered he gets upset, and starts to talk smack. Sorry, but I can't follow his reasoning, because he can't follow his reasoning. Now, he is back to Acts 2:38 and that if you didn't get Acts 2:38 well, God lets you in anyway, because you are ecclesiastically chill. Really?
Where Chris really caught himself in a crack is where he brings up his candy stick of Western European Dark Ages. Where the Western Roman Church is subjugating the mud farmers and their priests were dumber than Dade County pine stumps. Therefore God had to 86 His plan of salvation, put the breaks on the Spirit of Truth guiding into all Truth, and come up with another way. This way would make Him a kinder, gentler, nicer sovereign God. One who would suit Chris, and his "softness????" Seriously? Chris, do you even lift? Yet, Chris and some others won't broaden this logic to other cultures who hadn't the chance even at Christianity, and the Gospel. Not that it hand't reached them, but they never had opportunity to reference it. Can O Worms, which leads to even sadder conclusions.

[thephnxman]

His NAME is Jesus!


What I find interesting is that I found details that causes me to pause and consider agreeing with them... evidence
that could validate what they claim to believe... and instead of rubbing it in a little (because such is to be expected)
and seeing my desire for truth, and my integrity with even producing details that contradicted my own understanding...
they're still mocking and arguing with me. LOL!!!
They're Heaven is locked up tight from everyone... even those who come to realize the truth they profess to teach. LOL

You missed the mark...

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved." And you, sir, don't seem
to get it. We preach the gospel that saves so that they who will hear and
believe "...might be saved." Unfortunately, you repeat Acts 2:38, but then
you will add foolishness upon foolishness.

The Apostle John warned us about people like you, saying: "For many shall
come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." Yes: you
have implied that you are anointed to preach and teach, and there are some
among this forum whom you have fooled...having first deceived yourself.

Brother Villa

[houston]

I'm a work in progress. I lay no claim to having it all figured out or having all my questions answered.

Regression is not progression.

[houston]

His NAME is Jesus!



You missed the mark...

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved." And you, sir, don't seem
to get it. We preach the gospel that saves so that they who will hear and
believe "...might be saved." Unfortunately, you repeat Acts 2:38, but then
you will add foolishness upon foolishness.

The Apostle John warned us about people like you, saying: "For many shall
come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." Yes: you
have implied that you are anointed to preach and teach, and there are some
among this forum whom you have fooled...having first deceived yourself.

Brother Villa
Yes..!

[Aquila]

You have to read his posts from the bottom up.



One needs to ask who are the they? Inquiring minds are sincerely looking for truth. Chris has proven to us that isn't his goal, but only enjoys playing devil's advocate. Yet, when he gets cornered he gets upset, and starts to talk smack. Sorry, but I can't follow his reasoning, because he can't follow his reasoning. Now, he is back to Acts 2:38 and that if you didn't get Acts 2:38 well, God lets you in anyway, because you are ecclesiastically chill. Really?
Where Chris really caught himself in a crack is where he brings up his candy stick of Western European Dark Ages. Where the Western Roman Church is subjugating the mud farmers and their priests were dumber than Dade County pine stumps. Therefore God had to 86 His plan of salvation, put the breaks on the Spirit of Truth guiding into all Truth, and come up with another way. This way would make Him a kinder, gentler, nicer sovereign God. One who would suit Chris, and his "softness????" Seriously? Chris, do you even lift? Yet, Chris and some others won't broaden this logic to other cultures who hadn't the chance even at Christianity, and the Gospel. Not that it hand't reached them, but they never had opportunity to reference it. Can O Worms, which leads to even sadder conclusions.

I see where you're going with this. But it's more than that. It hinges on the question of when one experiences justification by faith. At what point do you believe one becomes justified by faith?