Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Baptism

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

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.

Originally Posted by Pliny

I would be interested in your evidence...

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

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

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

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.

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.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by seekerman

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.

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.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by seekerman

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.

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.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

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.

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.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The original teaching on Baptism is the one spoken on the first day of the Church, in Acts 2:38.

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

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.

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.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by seekerman

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.

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.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

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.

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.

[seekerman]

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.