This is an off-shoot of the thread on the name of Jesus and the remission of sins.I believe the following about baptism. Number 3 sets me apart from many in the Oneness Pentecostal movement…..1) It is to be done by the authority (name) of Jesus Christ, 2) That repentance and baptism are
I’m a little unclear on the phrase although baptized in heresy. Were these baptisms more mystic in nature, much like the seven sons of Sceva using the name of Jesus, or like the sorcerer Bar-Jesus baptizing people in his name. Is the heresy being dealt with, from your perspective, that of accepting Jesus as Savior, but not being baptized by authority in the recognized church? I need a little more clarity on the situation before I can understand the solution. By the way, I use the Water Baptism formula, In accordance to the command of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and by the authority vested in me as a minister of the Gospel, I baptize you my brother/sister in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In the baptism class I teach them that if any one ask if they have been baptized in the Name of Jesus I tell them to say yes.
While I do not think that Jesus intended on his words in Matthew 28:19to be recited as a baptismal formula, I agree with what you tell those in your baptism class. If they were baptized for Christ’s sake, then they were indeed baptized in his name, regardless of what the baptizer may have invoked or omitted. This is my biggest area of contention with my associates in the Oneness ranks. But they cannot refute my reasoning.Concerning your questions concerning the reference to some being baptized in heresy, yes I think it is simply a reference to those who baptized by leaders of some of the heretical sects such as Arianism. But it could also refer to those baptized by anti-establishment fundamentalists who continued to meet in homes, practicing primitive Christianity against the will of Rome.It amuses me a bit to see the writer mentioning heresy, when he and most of the established church were obviously embracing the heretical idea that those administering baptism have the power to remit sin through invocation of the name of Jesus. But regardless of their error, this document provides strong proof that invoking the name of Jesus at baptism was the standard practice for at least the first three centuries of Christianity________________
Even more confused now that I look at the source – Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. I not sure of the state of the Roman Church prior to the creed (and all that came out of the counsel), but I thought the centralization of authority to the Roman Church was not total even after 325 AD. Do you have any reference from the Apostolic Fathers that would agree with your position?
RS, do you believe that:1. A new convert must be baptized in water in the name of Jesus instead of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit?2. The name of the Father and Holy Spirit is Jesus?
RS, do you believe that:1. A new convert must be baptized in water in the name of Jesus instead of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit?I believe all Christian baptism of those who have truly repented is done in the name of Jesus (
The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers are a common historical source. We would have to do a little digging to see exactly when they were written. As for this being my position, I’m simply sharing what
Here is what Wikipedia says….The Ante-Nicene Fathers, subtitled The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, is a collection of books in 10 volumes (one volume is indexes) containing English translations of the majority of Early Christian writings. The period covers the beginning of Christianity until before the promulgation of the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea. The translations are very faithful, and provide valuable insights into the spirituality and theology of the early Church fathers.The series was originally published between 1867 and 1873 by the Presbyterian publishing house T. & T. Clark in Edinburgh under the title Ante-Nicene Christian Library (ANCL), as a response to the Oxford movement’s Library of the Fathers which was perceived as too Roman Catholic. The volumes were edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. This series was available by subscription, but the editors were unable to interest enough subscribers to commission a translation of the homilies of Origen.In 1885 the Christian Literature Company, first of Buffalo, then New York, began to issue the volumes in a reorganized form, edited by the Episcopalian bishop of New York, A. Cleveland Coxe. Coxe gave his series the title The Ante-Nicene Fathers. By 1896, this American edition/revision was complete. In 1897, a volume 9, which contained new translations, was published by T. & T. Clark as an additional volume, to complete the original ANCL. Apart from volume 9, the contents entirely derived from the ANCL, but in a more chronological order. Coxe added his own introductions and notes, which were criticized by academic authorities and Roman Catholic reviewers.T. & T. Clark then associated with the Christian Literature Company and with other American publisher for the publication of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers________________
Here is what Wikipedia says….The Ante-Nicene Fathers, subtitled The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, is a collection of books in 10 volumes (one volume is indexes) containing English translations of the majority of Early Christian writings. The period covers the beginning of Christianity until before the promulgation of the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea. The translations are very faithful, and provide valuable insights into the spirituality and theology of the early Church fathers.The series was originally published between 1867 and 1873 by the Presbyterian publishing house T. & T. Clark in Edinburgh under the title Ante-Nicene Christian Library (ANCL), as a response to the Oxford movement’s Library of the Fathers which was perceived as too Roman Catholic. The volumes were edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. This series was available by subscription, but the editors were unable to interest enough subscribers to commission a translation of the homilies of Origen.In 1885 the Christian Literature Company, first of Buffalo, then New York, began to issue the volumes in a reorganized form, edited by the Episcopalian bishop of New York, A. Cleveland Coxe. Coxe gave his series the title The Ante-Nicene Fathers. By 1896, this American edition/revision was complete. In 1897, a volume 9, which contained new translations, was published by T. & T. Clark as an additional volume, to complete the original ANCL. Apart from volume 9, the contents entirely derived from the ANCL, but in a more chronological order. Coxe added his own introductions and notes, which were criticized by academic authorities and Roman Catholic reviewers.T. & T. Clark then associated with the Christian Literature Company and with other American publisher for the publication of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. I know of the collect, though only having read bits and pieces, and by no means familiar with it. I have viewed A. J. Tomlinson’s set of these books over at the COGOP archives. It is said that he focused on the writing of the Apostolic Fathers (which he quoted sometimes in his writings), who were the church leaders who directly followed and knew the Apostles and their ministry. Your reference strikes me as much closer to the time of the counsel and creed, and the institutionalization of the church that separates the priest from the laity. In other words it sounds to Catholic for my restorationalist (if that’s a word) ears.
RS, do you believe that:1. A new convert must be baptized in water in the name of Jesus instead of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit?I believe all Christian baptism of those who have truly repented is done in the name of Jesus (
RS, do you believe that:1. A new convert must be baptized in water in the name of Jesus instead of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit?I believe all Christian baptism of those who have truly repented is done in the name of Jesus (
Here is what Wikipedia says….The Ante-Nicene Fathers, subtitled The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, is a collection of books in 10 volumes (one volume is indexes) containing English translations of the majority of Early Christian writings. The period covers the beginning of Christianity until before the promulgation of the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea. The translations are very faithful, and provide valuable insights into the spirituality and theology of the early Church fathers.The series was originally published between 1867 and 1873 by the Presbyterian publishing house T. & T. Clark in Edinburgh under the title Ante-Nicene Christian Library (ANCL), as a response to the Oxford movement’s Library of the Fathers which was perceived as too Roman Catholic. The volumes were edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. This series was available by subscription, but the editors were unable to interest enough subscribers to commission a translation of the homilies of Origen.In 1885 the Christian Literature Company, first of Buffalo, then New York, began to issue the volumes in a reorganized form, edited by the Episcopalian bishop of New York, A. Cleveland Coxe. Coxe gave his series the title The Ante-Nicene Fathers. By 1896, this American edition/revision was complete. In 1897, a volume 9, which contained new translations, was published by T. & T. Clark as an additional volume, to complete the original ANCL. Apart from volume 9, the contents entirely derived from the ANCL, but in a more chronological order. Coxe added his own introductions and notes, which were criticized by academic authorities and Roman Catholic reviewers.T. & T. Clark then associated with the Christian Literature Company and with other American publisher for the publication of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. I know of the collect, though only having read bits and pieces, and by no means familiar with it. I have viewed A. J. Tomlinson’s set of these books over at the COGOP archives. It is said that he focused on the writing of the Apostolic Fathers (which he quoted sometimes in his writings), who were the church leaders who directly followed and knew the Apostles and their ministry. Your reference strikes me as much closer to the time of the counsel and creed, and the institutionalization of the church that separates the priest from the laity. In other words it sounds to Catholic for my restorationalist (if that’s a word) ears. Mat That was also my impression________________
We went through this nonsense in the Assemblies of God in 1916. Total denial of the Trinity and dangerous to boot. IT is adding conditions to salvation and removes justification by faith and the sole manner of salvation. Every oneness person should answer these questions for themselves by solo scriptura.Is Jesus His own Father?If Jesus’ will and the Father’s will were identical, then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will but the will of the Father? Was Jesus praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane?If Jesus was praying to the divine side of Himself, then isn’t He still praying to Himself?Why was Jesus not saying, Not My will, but MY will be done? if there is only one person and one will involved when He was praying in Luke 22:42& Matt. 26:39.If baptism is essential for salvation, then what happens to someone who repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior, walks across the street to get baptized but is killed by a car. Does he go to heaven or hell?If he goes to heaven, then baptism isn’t a requirement is it?If he goes to hell, then faith in Christ isn’t sufficient to save him is it?Since the Bible teaches us that Jesus is in bodily form now (Col. 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that God is in the form of the Holy Spirit? Also, when Jesus returns, will He return in His body? Will God’s form then revert to the form of the Son at a later date?If God is only one person, why did Jesus say in John 14:23, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. If God is only one person, why does Jesus say, we?Oneness theology teaches that God was in the mode of the Father in the Old Testament. God was seen in the OT (not as a vision or a dream or an angel in the following verses: Exo. 6:2-3; Gen. 19:24; Num. 12:6-. But, Jesus said no one has seen the Father (John 6:46
‘Heresy’ would have been a division, a split off the main church. A friend of mine checked all the so-called ‘church father’s’ for references to ‘born of water and of the Spirit.’ If I remember right, of the 18 references, 17 associated it with water baptism and one wasn’t definitive________________
And you don’t see the same problems in the Trinity doctrine? You have a God with three selves. The doctrine of the Trinity is emphatic on God being only one being and not three. So you have God praying to himself in the garden. Any such argument against Oneness applies to the Trinity.And no, the Oneness doctrine does not teach that God was Father in the Old Testament, wore a Son mask later, and a dove suit later. If you are going to critique at least know what you are talking about. As for baptism, you have an issue with Jesus, not me…He who believes and is baptized shall be saved… (Mark 16:16) Exceptions like a guy walking across the street and getting killed I’m sure God understands. The purpose of this thread was not to prove the Oneness position on the Godhead, but to demonstrate the baptism in the name of Jesus was not an invention of Oneness Pentecostals but is grounded in church history. You are now trying to change the subject________________
Man defining God? I know there will never be a clear and concise definition of God written by man. The infinite God who is limitless is beyond comprehension by the finite and mortal mind of man. God choose to reveal Himself to man in the measure necessary for our salvation, but by no means is God limited to the total number of words in the Bible. To try and define the substance of God, who is revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a greater task than counting all the stars and plants which God the Creator made, even though it is a finite number. We do comprehend there is an order of salvation revealed in the Word, but the mystery of God is not fully revealed. I do not believe man is capable of a perfect definition of God. The Bible is clear that the only way to be saved is in relationship with Jesus Christ (the only Name given). He is our God given vehicle of salvation. He will get us from here to there, but we can not define all that there entails. My Opinion, I think some are running around the same mountain in different directions.
I agree completely. And it is because of this that I think Oneness and Trinitarians should be careful in pointing out each other’s inconsistencies as they relate to the Godhead. Both groups believe there is one God who exists as Father, Son and Spirit simultaneously, and that salvation is solely through Jesus. Both groups often misrepresent each other as well________________
I’m not endorsing all the views in these writings. I am just pointing out that charges that Oneness Pentecostals cannot find historical precedent for invoking the name of Jesus in baptism are false________________
What’s so funny about that is that I am one of the few Oneness Pentecostals that does not think being born of water in John 3:5is a reference to water baptism________________
I didn’t know you still identified as Oneness. Were you Oneness before or after JSBC________________