Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Baptism
 

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951), II, 384, 389 'The formula used was 'in the name of the Lord Jesus [Christ] or some synonymous phrase."

Interpreter's Dictionary of tht Bible (1962), I, 351 The evidence . . . suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible (1898), I, 241:"[One could conclude that] the original form of words was 'into the name of Jesus Christ' or 'the Lord Jesus.’”

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435 “The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53i :"Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ” . . . or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

JAMES HASTINGS: "It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice to the words of Christ in Matthew 28:19, but the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as textural grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, which so far as our information goes, baptized 'in” or 'into' the Name of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, without any reference to the Father or the Spirit" (DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, Page 88).

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPAEDIA: "The triune and trinity formula was not uniformly used from the beginning, and up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ was valid. But Catholic missionaries, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were anathematized by the Roman church. Now the formula of Rome is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost" (llth Ed., Vol. 3, Pages 365-366).

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS: "Persons were baptized at first in the Name of Jesus Christ, or 'in the Name of the Lord Jesus.' Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Page 53).

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION: "Christian baptism was administered by using the words 'in the Name of Jesus.1 The use of a Trinity formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when the Triune formula was used" (Vol. 2, Pages 377-378, 389)

"NAME was an ancient synonym for "Person." Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus' Name became His personal property. "Ye are Christ's." (Acts 1:15; Revelation 3:4; I Corinthians 3:23).

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: "With regard to the form used for Baptism in the early church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew (28:19) speaks of the Trinitarian formula, which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) speak only of Baptism 'in the Name of Jesus.' Baptism in titles cannot Be found in the first centuries..." (McGraw Hill Publishing, Page 59).

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

But not a single solitary reference you've given were oneness pentecostals with their three-step salvation doctrine. You'll not find oneness pentecostal three step salvation theology until after 1913.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Don't recall that being the subject of the post.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Isn't Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

What does your Bible tell you. My opinion doesn't count.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

You were trying to say something when you posted your references. Were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

My very good Friend has a book with quotes from a 1st century source. In it, they speak of the body baptizing in the titles according to Matthew 28.

The reality, is that prior to our having a canonized scripture, you would have had groups out there who perhaps ONLY had Matthew as fas as the gospels go. Hence they would have baptized as Matthew 28 instructs them. Later, once the canon was compiled it became IMO clear that Jesus Name baptism was the only scripturally endorsed means of proper baptism.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

The real question is why none of the advocates for a Matthew 28:19 baptismal "formula" are unable to find a single instance of it in the early church. Seems that Jesus' Name was the only one used.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

You're avoiding the issue. Were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Is it a salvation issue? In other words did the Matt 28:19 formula negate their salvation or did it impact their salvation at all?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

The problem with that view is it leaves the Apostles in the unenviable position of seeming to have ignored Jesus' words on the day of Pentecost, long before Matthew was written.

The fact is that Jesus gave them clear instructions and they followed those instruction to the letter by baptizing in the Name of Jesus. You rightly point out that what we find in Matthew 28 are titles. What is the singular Name, they describe?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.

You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.

Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

I misplaced my punctuation. It would be better phrased as 'on the day of Pentecost, they ignored Jesus' word." Sorry for the confusion.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Not avoiding anything except a fruitless discussion. Consider it following Paul's advice to Timothy.
1 Timothy 6:20-21 (NASB)
20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”— 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Yes, you're avoiding the issue. Once more....were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism is one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

This is an absolute tenet of Apostolic Theology and the undeniable teaching of scripture.

Why would ANY true believer want to avoid being baptized in the only saving Name?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Why are you avoiding the issue? Were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism is one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Since the reformation days of Martin Luther, the Lord has brought a progressive revelation of truth to the church. This unfolding of restored understanding of himself and His Word is for the purpose of returning His Church to her original anointing, authority and mission. As God restores the foundational gifts and ministries there comes a shift in our understanding and doctrine.

What amazes me about the critics of the Apostolic Movement is their affirmation of progressive revelation on the one hand and their denial of it as it applies to Oneness Pentecostalism.

While there are no new revelations, there is restored understanding of the scriptures. Luther’s comprehension of salvation by faith was not a new revelation. It was there all the time, but the church had lost sight of it. God uses men such as this to call the church back to forgotten truths. We believe the reformation is not over. The greatest restoration is happening now!

What sets the Apostolic Church apart from the rest of Christendom is not merely its emphasis on Acts 2:38 salvation and worship of the One True and Living God in Jesus Christ but also a unique approach to scripture. Our actual goal as Christians is to be genuinely Apostolic. We strive to “weed out” traditions and doctrines of men which were added later. Basically, we try to take what Luther started to its logical conclusion, true biblical reformation. We see many doctrines and beliefs as not Apostolic, but as a later development. Even my learned seminary professors would agree with this, but they put much authority in church history. They see the goal of the Bible scholar/theologian to develop the seed left by the writers of the New Testament. They think it arrogant to even question the wisdom of the church fathers. We on the other hand see our job description as one of recovery of truth which has been lost or distorted, to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). We are at heart, restorationists, trying to help restore the Church to her original belief and power. Of course we don’t want to ignore what others have written or said about the Bible, but we understand this merely to be the thinking of fallible men. I believe that the church has gotten away from what the apostles taught in many respects and that we need to get it back. We need to stop seeing the church in Acts as in a “baby stage,” and start seeing it as the model upon which to base our belief and practice. Only when we return to New Testament patterns, principles and practice, will we experience true New Testament power.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

I'm sorry I mistakenly thought I was clear. Let me try again.
This is an absolute tenet of Apostolic Theology and the undeniable teaching of scripture.

Why would ANY true believer want to avoid being baptized in the only saving Name?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Even in the First Century the slide into apostasy had already begun.

Colossians 2:8-10 (KJV)
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

2 Peter 2:1 (NASB)
2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Jude 1:3 (NASB)
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

In our quest for revival and restoration, we recognize that before we can fully experience New Testament power, we must first return to New Testament patterns, principles and priorities. When the patterns are right, the Glory of God will manifest and His power will be released. The early Believers "continued steadfastly in the Apostle's Doctrine, in fellowship, the breaking of bread and in prayers." (Acts 2:42). As God restores these apostolic truths to His Church today, He is laying a foundation that can be built upon securely.

We must acknowledge that God is neither explained by nor limited to any set of doctrinal beliefs or statements. There is as well the danger, as church history has shown, of men limiting themselves by such articles, becoming totally unprepared to advance in God when the light of recovered truth begins to shine. We see the result of this in the many denominations and organizations around us. The trend among some, however, of declaring doctrine to be unnecessary or unimportant, is absolutely contrary to scripture. The Bible is clear on the importance of doctrine. It must not only be sound, pure and scriptural, but it must also be obeyed.

All beliefs have their roots in various teachings, true or false. These doctrines, when believed and practiced, determine not only our actions, but also our character and ultimately our destiny. Many otherwise sincere people have been led into deception. Thus, it is essential for us to be fully established in the doctrines as set forth in the scriptures. When a believer is established in the Apostle's doctrine they will no longer be blown about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:4) or become ensnared by the doctrines of demons (I Tim. 4:1).

—It does matter who and what we believe! --

(Titus 1:9,2:11; II Tim. 3; 14-17; I Tim. 4:6,13,16, 6:1-3)
Apostolic Doctrine
In this age of “easy believeism” what the world needs most is the reality of Jesus Christ and the true Gospel.
True Biblical Christianity is Pentecostal, Apostolic and Oneness.
We believe in the one everlasting True God who has revealed Himself as the Father in creation: through the Son in redemption; and as the Holy Ghost at work in the lives of believers. The basic and fundamental doctrine of most Apostolic Churches and organizations is the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

I would be interested in your evidence...

If the "nevertheless" is your evidence it is not evidence at all but fanciful speculation.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

No, you're not clear. Yet again....were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism is one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

The truth is the so-called, self-labeled 'apostolics' are experiencing no more power than those Christians they look down on. The Church of Jesus Christ wasn't invisible, dead, buried or absent for almost 2000 years, until the sudden appearance of the oneness pentecostal sect, and the Spirit of God was moving mightily in the decades preceding the latter day sect. If you simply look to the 1800s you'll see the Church of Jesus Christ growing and flourishing apart from oneness pentecostalism.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

This could only happen if the disciples were leaning on their own interpretations and understandings and not God's. As if God wasn't with Peter when he discipled the first one, and then God wasn't opening up the understanding of the others so they'll understand the scriptures as in what God intended for that scripture to mean etc.,

If they were looking at it all natural, then yeah, they can be deceived...

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Baptism in Jesus name is a biblical precedent. He was quoting verses showing the early church followed that precedent

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

You are referring to the Didache. It's hard to prove it's first century nor that it doesn't contain interpolations

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Some did, some didn't. The question is, does it matter? Was baptism in Jesus name a salvation issue or just a best practice issue in the early church?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Why does it have to matter in order to discuss? Did anyone ask you if it matters in your thread about what makes you sick?

BTW don't you agree what God's word says is important?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Folks made observations concerning what made them sick. I certainly didn't protest when folks said they liked boiled okra. My position is to eat it if you like it.

When did encyclopedia brittanica become the word of God?

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

So then why can't we discuss history?

When did I say it was the word of God? The topic relates to what the word of God says or what the early church believed was what the word of God says

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

By all means discuss history. Two things will be quickly revealed, 1) there were various early historical views on baptism and 2) the Church of Jesus Christ was alive and well apart from the baptismal disagreements in the Church. Still is.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Apparently this has not been seen or there is no evidence for a first century baptism in the titles.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

You have absolutely no historical precedent for your comments regarding First Century practices.

Concerning the well known Didache or "Teaching of the Apostles." of which only one copy, dated 1056, survives. Scholars agree that it was certainly not written by the twelve apostles, but it claims to reflect their teaching. It is not a first-century document, as often supposed. Internal and external evidence reveal that it is no earlier than 120 and perhaps considerably later. It contains doctrinal errors that do not reflect the original teachings of the church. It includes both the Jesus Name formula and the later Matthew 28 formula. The consensus of conservative trinitarian scholars is that the latter is an interpolation added much later.

As to your other comments, they show an absolute disregard for the authority and inspiration of scripture and the method by which the various teachings were circulated and ultimately gathered. Neither the facts of history or the teaching of scripture warrants your conclusions.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

You can find the message of salvation in Acts 2:38 and in numerous other places within Acts as well as several allusions to it throughout the Epistles. The fact that it originated with "Oneness Pentecostals," is the simple truth of scripture. They were Born Again at Pentecost and most certainly believed in One God.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

The original teaching on Baptism is the one spoken on the first day of the Church, in Acts 2:38.
This is the first and original baptism
It was spoken by Peter the Apostle of Jesus
Peter had just received the Spirit of Truth that guides into all truth.
Any other view on baptism is erroneous.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

The simple fact of the Church of Jesus Christ is that it's never been defeated, invisible, cowering or absent for 2000 years. The simple fact is that the Church is built upon Jesus Christ and didn't suddenly appear in 1913 after almost 2000 years of being gone, invisible, dead and buried as one would have to believe if one views oneness pentecostalism (circa 1913) as the sole representative of the Church of Jesus Christ today.

The simple truth, like it or not, accept it or not, is that the Church of Jesus Christ is, and has been for 2000 years, much much larger than the latter day (circa 1913) oneness pentecostal sect.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Jesus words concerning baptism in Matt 28:19 were....oh wait....you rewrote that. Never mind. :)

Are the words a man speaks over another one during baptism, and who has called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ themselves, a determinate of the salvation of the individual being baptized?

A simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.....but I doubt very seriously I get it. :)

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

It is easy for people to overlook the fact that Matthew was present on the Day of Pentecost and felt no need to correct Peter's inspired interpretation of Matthew 28:19. Never mind the fact that neither book would be written for several years, there simply is no discrepancy. The singular "Name' of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. The Apostles knew this and thus the command given in Acts 2:38, and subsequent chapters to baptize in the Name of Jesus. It's not an, "either/or" situation for both passages refer to the same Name.

As to your other question? Readers will find the book, The New Birth by David K Bernard a very helpful resource. Dr. Bernard is a noted expert in the study of Apostolic Theology in general, and more specifically, the field of Christology.

The following is taken from pages 166-170 of his book:

Oral Invocation of the Name
Some contend that “baptism in the name of Jesus” means only in the authority and power of Jesus, and does not mean the name should be uttered orally as part of the baptismal formula. However, the following evidence shows that “in the name of Jesus” is the actual formula:

(1) Baptism in the name of Jesus does mean baptism with His power and authority, but the way to invoke His power and authority is to invoke His name in faith. The authority represented by a name is always invoked by actually using the proper name. All the discussion of power and authority cannot obscure one point: when we actually use a name at baptism it should be the name Jesus.

(2) The Bible reveals that the name Jesus was orallyinvoked at baptism. Acts 22:16 says, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Here is a biblical command to call the Lord’s name (Jesus) at baptism.

Some argue that in this verse only the baptismal candidate called the name of Jesus, not the administrator. This is debatable, but even so the name Jesus was orally invoked. In general, the baptizer normally invokes the name, but the candidate may also call on the name of Jesus as well, for baptism’s validity depends on the candidate’s faith, not on the baptizer’s faith.

An oral calling did occur, for the Greek word rendered “calling” is epikaleomai, which means “to call over” or “to invoke.” This is the same word that describes Stephen’s oral prayer to God: “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). The same verb also appears in Acts 15:17: “the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord,” and in James 2:7: “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?” Both passages imply a specific time when the name of Jesus was invoked over believers, which occurred at water baptism. Other translations of James 2:7 are as follows: “[Do] not they blaspheme the good name called on you?” (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament); “Do not they defame the noble name which hath been invoked upon you?” (Rotherham); “Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?” (TAB).
Thus the Bible states in one verse and indicates in several others that the name of Jesus is to be orally invoked at baptism.

(3) The clear, common sense reading of the baptismal passages leads one to believe that “in the name of Jesus” is the baptismal formula. That is the natural, literal reading, and a person must use questionable and twisted methods of biblical interpretation to deny that the words mean what they appear to mean. If this is not a formula, it is strange that it appears so many times as if it were a formula without any explanation to the contrary.

(4) In other situations, “in the name of Jesus” means orally uttering the name Jesus. Jesus told His disciples they would pray for the sick in His name (Mark 16:17-18), and James said we should pray for the sick “in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). When Peter prayed for a lame man, he actually used the name, for he said, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk” (Acts 3:6). Then he explained that the man was healed “by the name of Jesus” (Acts 3:16; 4:10). In other words, when the Early Church prayed for the sick in the name of Jesus, they actually uttered the name Jesus. Likewise, when the Early Church baptized in the name of Jesus, they actually uttered the name Jesus as part of the baptismal formula.

(5) If “in the name of Jesus” does not represent a formula, then the Bible gives no formula for Christian baptism. The only other candidate for a baptismal formula would be the wording of Matthew 28:19. However, if “in the name of Jesus” does not teach a formula, then neither does “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” for the grammatical structure is identical in both verses. If “in the name” means “by the authority of” without literally invoking a name, then neither verse gives a formula.

However, we do not believe Jesus left us without guidance on such an important subject. Water baptism is very important, so it is inconceivable that the Bible would not give adequate instructions as to its administration. If we do not have a formula, what distinguishes Christian baptism from heathen baptisms, Jewish proselyte baptism, or John’s baptism?

If there is no formula, or if the formula does not matter, why did Paul rebaptize John’s disciples in the name of Jesus? No reputable scholar holds that baptismal formula is irrelevant or that the Bible gives no direction regarding a baptismal formula. Yet, if “in the name of” does not describe a formula, we have none.

(6) Theologians and church historians recognize that the Book of Acts does give the baptismal formula of the Early Church. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says with respect to baptism in the New Testament, “The formula used was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ or some synonymous phrase: there is no evidence for theuse of the trine name.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3, suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the three-fold name, but ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus.’”

Some argue that “in the name of Jesus” is not a formula since the various baptismal accounts use different descriptive phrases, such as “in the name of Jesus Christ,” “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and “in the name of the Lord.” However, all these phrases are equivalent, for they all describe the same name, which is Jesus. Lord and Christ are simply titles that distinguish the Lord Jesus Christ from any others who might have the name Jesus, but the unique name of the Son of God is Jesus. Even Matthew 28:19 describes the baptismal formula as being in the Name of Jesus.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

I had (maybe still have if I haven't thrown them away) both of Bernard's books, The Oneness of God and The New Birth.

The truth is, there's not a single solitary NT reference of what precisely was said by the baptizor when they baptized another person. Additionally, there's not a single solitary NT reference that one's salvation hinges on what another person says over you while immersing you. Your salvation isn't dependent upon the correct performance of another man on your behalf. It's not scriptural.

Re: Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Bapt
 

Same question to you, larry. Are the words a man speaks over another one during baptism, and who has called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ themselves, a determinate of the salvation of the individual being baptized?

A simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.....but I doubt very seriously I get it.