Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Baptism

[larrylyates]

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).

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

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).

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.

[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.

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

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

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

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?

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by seekerman

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?

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

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

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

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?

[Nitehawk013]

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.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by seekerman

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?

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.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

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.

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?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

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.

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?