Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist
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.
Threaded Mode
