CHAPTER XVIII
NO OTHER NAME
DO ONENESS PEOPLE IGNORE JESUS' COMMAND TO BAPTIZE "IN
THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY GHOST"?
WHY ARE TRINITARIANS TRYING TO ELIMINATE ALL BAPTISMAL FORMULAE,
BOTH ONENESS AND TRINITARIAN?
IS THE FORMULA AN UNNECESSARY DETAIL?
// IS FEAR HEALTHY? // THE
FORMULA // G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY // WILHELM
BOUSSET // DR. ARMITAGE ROBINSON // DEAN
STANLEY // ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
RELIGION AND ETHICS // HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE // THE NEW
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA // OTTO HEICK
// SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA // ENCYCLOPEDIA
BRITANNICA // BAPTIST
SCHOLAR BEASLEY-MURRAY SPEAKS OUT // THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH GOES TO "CONFESSION" // WILLISTON
WALKER // ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA //
NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNTS // JERUSALEM
// SAMARIA // CAESAREA //
EPHESUS // ETHIOPIA // DAMASCUS
// CORINTH // ROME // GALATIA
// COLOSSE // THE
FIRST CHURCH COUNCIL AND BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME // WHAT
ABOUT MATTHEW 28:19? // REVELATION
AND RECONCILIATION // REVELATION
AT PENTECOST // MATTHEW 28:19 EXPLAINED
// THEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT //
FINDING THE ONE NAME // THE
NAME OF THE SON // THE NAME OF THE
FATHER // MEANING OF THE NAME
OF JESUS // NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST
// NAME OF
THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST IS JESUS // THE
APOSTLES AGREE // THE "NAMELESS" BAPTISM
// THE EFFECT OF THE "NO-NAME"
DOCTRINE // OPENING PANDORA'S BOX
// IS THE FORMULA VERBAL? // PROOF
OF VERBAL FORMULA // SCHOLARS
TESTIFY TO VERBAL FORMULA // PICK
A PHRASE, ANY PHRASE! // APOSTOLIC
APPLICATION // PHANTOM FORMULAS
Jesus did not tell His disciples to baptize using the words Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. He told them to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son
and Holy Ghost. That name is JESUS!! JESUS is the Father, the
Son and the Holy Ghost, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince
of Peace, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Bright and Morning
Star, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the Ending, the One that
was, and is and is to come. THE ALMIGHTY.
Every Apostle, every disciple, every writer of the New Testament
was baptized in Jesus' Name. No one ever used the words Father, Son
and Holy Ghost in baptism.
WHY DO YOU?
Acts 2:38 Acts 8:14-16 Acts 10:44-48 Acts 19:1-6
Acts 22:16
IS THE FORMULA AN UNNECESSARY DETAIL?
Having established the importance and essentiality of water baptism, we
now turn our attention to the "formula," or words to be spoken over the
candidate. If baptism is essential, then it is essential that we
do it correctly. Some will argue that God is not interested in details.
But what constitutes a "detail"? Was it a "detail" that the death
angel was looking for that dark night in Egypt when the first born son
was slain in every house that had no blood on the door posts and lintels?
Could the Jews have varied the "details" a little and painted the windows
instead? Or used red paint instead of blood? After all, they
look the same, and God is not "picky." But God was "picky" that night,
and details did matter. Was it just a detail when Uzzah touched the
ark to steady it as it made its way down the dusty road. If it were
a detail, he was killed for it! Or what about the "details" concerning
the Lord's Supper? Must we use bread and fruit of the vine?
The Mormons use bread and water; the Quakers use nothing; and one blaspheming
modernist in Maryland set beer and pretzels on the altar. He said
"the details don't matter," "God wasn't picky," as long as the intent
was correct!
Where will it stop as ministers relegate everything they don't agree
with to "circular file" of "unnecessary details"? Boyd sums up his
opposition to our insistence on the use of the New Testament formula by
saying:
"In other words, the God presupposed in this theology will damn a person
on a technicality" (p. 145).
He feels of course, that the baptismal formula is a technicality!
To obey God exactly in the requirements for salvation, as we in the Oneness
faith believe in doing, is characterized as
"a relationship between a meticulous perfectionistic employer and his
fearful employees." (p. 145).
And he refers to water baptism as a
"procedure the believer performs for God" (p. 145).
We don't view God as a "meticulous perfectionistic" just because he sets
down clearly in the Word a very simple plan for the procurement of
pardon. Neither is baptism something we perform for God. For
it is we, not God, who receive remission of sins. We are the
sole beneficiaries of that great experience. Moses was told to be
careful to "make all things according to the pattern," that was shown him.
Should we do less, and use "grace" as an excuse for this "free-wheeling,"
pick as you please cafeteria approach to religion? Peter silenced
these arguments about the unimportance of the Name of Jesus and its employment
when he said:
Neither is there salvation in any other: for
there is none other name ("no second name") under heaven given among men,
whereby we must be saved.
Acts 4:12
And Jesus told us something also about those who do not have particular
concern about even the least of his commandments (and baptism is
certainly, not that):
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven:
Matthew 5:19
That's the principle of obedience that Christ laid down. We are not
to "pick and choose" what is a technicality and what is not! We Oneness
are not "fearful employees" but joyously obedient followers of Christ,
who look forward to hearing: "Come thou good and faithful servant,
enter into the joy of your Lord." And our desire is that we may say,
as Christ did, "Lo, I come... to do thy will, O God." (Heb. 10:7).
Technicalities and all! For the "volume of the book" is full of them!
IS FEAR HEALTHY?
Dr. Boyd apparently thinks "fear" has no place in a
"relationship between a passionately loving Father and his undeserving
children" (p. 145).
But we all know the results of such thinking in today's society in which
the children have absolutely no fear of their parents: Promiscuous
lawlessness! Paul did not agree with Dr. Boyd's "no fear" theory
for he wrote:
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed,
not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling
Phil 2:12
Paul believed it was more important to tremble than to whistle! the
writer to the Hebrews says:
Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise
being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come
short of it.
Heb. 4:1
Omitting the Name of Jesus in water baptism would certainly cause one to
"come short", if we consider New Testament practice. Trinitarians
better fear! What the modern church, which claims to be Christian,
needs is a little more fear, instead of this "merrily we skip along" attitude
that has developed over under the guise of "love" and "grace". The modern
day evangelical convert is fast degenerating into an individual who gives
his "heart to Jesus," lends his body to the devil, and keeps his mind for
himself! And this is real grounds for fear! (and worry!).
THE FORMULA
The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christian baptism was always
performed in Jesus' name. This is the Formula and the New Testament
knows no other! Dr. Boyd grudgingly hints this may be so:
"Thus, even if the earliest disciples did in fact baptize in Jesus'
name, it should at least be very clear they did not do so with the Oneness
significance..." (p. 141).
He further states:
"The more informed Oneness Pentecostals like to argue that Jesus' Name
baptism was practiced not only in Acts, but in the second and third
century as well. And, indeed, there does exist a small amount
of evidence to this effect." (p. 141).
"If the earliest disciples did in fact baptize in Jesus' Name" he says!
There's no "if" about it! We have the record, for "it is written."
They baptized in no other way! He surely must admit this. He
is an educated man, a graduate of Princeton! He reads the Greek;
he has an open Bible; he has access to great libraries, he knows what scholarship
says in this point. Before we examine the scriptural record,
let us hear the conclusion reached by eminent scholars from just such a
scriptural examination.
G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY
This Baptist scholar and historian, fluent in classic languages, was commissioned
by the Baptist Church to write a definitive volume on water baptism for
the benefit of the Baptist Church. His volume is a masterpiece of
research. He has left no stone unturned. The work is truly
the "be all" and "end all" on the baptismal controversy. He did not
consider the evidence "a small amount" for he writes:
"There is not one example in the whole New Testament literature of
a baptism taking place in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"
(G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, p. 82-83).
He further proves that baptism was performed with the invocation of Jesus
Name, was associated with remission of sins, and followed by a charismatic
outpouring of the Holy Spirit. What does that sound like? And
this was from a man who has no "axe to grind" -- 2:38 or otherwise!
WILHELM BOUSSET
This German historian writes,
"It is still essentially a baptism in the Name of Jesus"
(Wilhelm Bousett, Kurios Christos, p. 295).
He goes on to say,
"The Testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula
(in Jesus name - ed.) down into the second century is so overwhelming
that even in Matt. 28:19, the trinitarian formula was only later inserted"
(Bousett, p. 295).
DR. ARMITAGE ROBINSON
He writes:
"In the earliest times, however, baptism appears to have been administered
'in the name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 2:38, 10:48), or 'Lord Jesus' (Acts
8:16; 19:5). And on the use of the single baptismal formula St. Paul's
argument in 1 Cor. 1:13 seems to be based..."
(Ephesians p. 234ff).
To this conclusion of Dr. Armitage is added the endorsement of Dr. Charles
Gore, in his masterful work on Christian history and doctrine entitled
the "Reconstruction of Belief":
"I have expressed disagreement with this in the past, but I desire
to retract the disagreement. I think the evidence is fairly convincing
that at the beginning only the single name was used. Down to
the time of the Schoolmen this view prevailed, see St. Thomas Aquinas,
Sum. Th. 3A qu. 66 a. 6"
(Gore, 745-746).
DEAN STANLEY
He writes in Christian Institutions: the following:
"Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere
administered in the three-fold name -- soon superseded the simpler
form of that in the 'Name of the Lord Jesus Only'."
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND
ETHICS
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics edited by James Hastings states:
"The formula used was 'in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ'
or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune
Name"
(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 2, p. 384, 1958 edition).
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible adds:
"Moreover, there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being
baptized into the name of the Trinity"
(James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 241, 1906
edition).
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPEDIA
The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia vol 1, pages 395-396
under "Baptism" and referring to the Trinitarian formula says:
"But it is curious that the words are not given in any description
of Christian Baptism until the time of Justin Martyr, and there they are
not repeated exactly but in a slightly extended form. In every account
of the performance of the rite in Apostolic times a much shorter formula
is in use. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the day of Pentecost
in the Name of Jesus Christ. The same formula was used at the Baptism
of Cornelius and those that were with him. Indeed it would appear
to have been the usual one, from Paul's question to the Corinthians: 'Were
you baptized in the name of Paul?' No record of the Trinitarian formula
can be discovered in the Acts of the Apostles. The difficulty was considered
by the Fathers."
I imagine it was!
OTTO HEICK
Otto Heick's objective in his comprehensive work on Christian thought is
this:
"At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually
in the Name of the Triune God: Father, Son , and Holy Spirit"
(Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, p.
215).
SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"The New Testament knows only baptism in the Name of Jesus... which
still occurs in the second and third centuries"
(Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1,
p.435, 1966 edition).
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
"We gather from Acts 19:4 that John had merely baptized in the Name
of the Coming Messiah, without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth.
The Apostolic Age supplied the identification, and the normal use during
it seems to have been, 'into Christ Jesus' or 'in the Name of the Lord
Jesus Christ' simply, or 'of the Lord Jesus Christ'
(Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 3, p. 368, 1910 edition).
BAPTIST SCHOLAR BEASLEY-MURRAY
SPEAKS OUT
G.R. Beasley-Murray, whom we previously cited, has produced what many consider
the most comprehensive study on Water Baptism yet. His book, Baptism
in the New Testament, is required reading for any who would gain
a true biblical understanding of this rite of Christian initiation.
Beasley-Murray is one of the leading New Testament scholars in England,
and is, as we have mentioned, a Baptist; but his research transcends denominational
lines. F.F. Bruce said concerning his book:
"...it is a work of first class scholarship, and it would be a tragedy
if it were to become unobtainable."
After years of study and investigation in the subject of water baptism,
Beasley-Murray has determined that New Testament water baptism was
performed exclusively with the single formula of "Jesus Name;" was
for the remission of sins; and was further associated with Charismatic
Spirit reception. (If one is "in a hurry" the same conclusion can
be obtained by studying the Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal
Church International or the Manual of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the
World!)
Let us read what Dr. Beasley-Murray has to say on baptism; the fruit
of years of unbiased scrutinizing of scripture and history:
"The Name of the Lord Jesus is called over the baptized. He therefore
dedicates himself to the Lord and is appropriated for him... This implies
an effective action by which the Messiah enrolls the baptized as one of
his subjects and accords to him a place in the Kingdom of God" (p. 102).
"In the passage already cited, Acts 22:16, the exhortation to Paul,
'Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name,' implies
that his sins will be washed away in his baptism accompanied by prayer.
The word of Peter in Acts 2:38 conveys a similar impression..." (p. 102).
"As has been mentioned, baptism in Acts is always administered 'in
the name of Jesus Christ' or in the name of the Lord Jesus'" (Acts 2:38;
8:16; 10:48; 19:5) (p. 100).
"That the Name was on the lips of the candidate baptized as well as
uttered by the baptizer is harmonious with the dual nature of baptism as
an act of man and an act of God" (p. 100).
"Cleansing is the primary meaning of baptism in all religious
groups that have practiced it; but when baptism is administered in the
name of the Lord who died and rose for the blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19),
this aspect of its significance is immensely strengthened" (p. 103).
"Again and again we have had cause to remind ourselves that Christian
Baptism is baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus; in it the name of the
Lord is called over the baptized, declaring him to be the Lord's, and the
name is confessed and invoked by the baptized" (p. 120).
"The significance of 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' is presumed
as known without further explanation: the name of Jesus Christ is called
on by the baptismal candidate in appeal for washing, consecration and righteousness,
and the name of Jesus Christ is called over him by the baptizer, signifying
that Jesus Christ... cleanses, consecrates, and justifies him" (p. 166).
Dr. Beasley-Murray feels that Paul's expression, 'but ye are justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God," in 1 Corinthians
6:11, is a direct reference to the Jesus name baptismal formula:
" 'In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' reflects the use of the name
in the baptismal formula" (p. 163).
He also is certain that Paul's reference to the "Spirit of our God" links
water baptism in Jesus' Name with Spirit Baptism:
"That the experience of the Spirit is linked with baptism in the name
of the Lord Jesus needs no further demonstration after our discussion of
the evidence on this matter in the Book of Acts" (p. 163).
He also feels it is
"difficult to disassociate the 'washing' of 1 Cor. 6:11 from the baptismal
cleansing" (p. 163).
So do we!
Interestingly enough, Dr. Beasley-Murray feels that 1 Cor. 6:11 might
have been used after Paul's death as the basis for the newly evolving Trinitarian
formula which eventually replaced the original apostolic Jesus' name formula.
The reason for this suggestion is that 1 Cor. 6:11 mentions Jesus, the
Spirit, and God in one paragraph. Trinitarian innovators might have
seized that to justify their new "replacement" formula. He writes:
"This is insufficient evidence for the existence in Paul's time of
a baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it provides
a hint of the way in which the Trinitarian formula arose..." (p. 167).
Dr. Beasley-Murray is also in agreement with Oneness Pentecostalism in
linking a Charismatic Spirit Baptism with water baptism in Jesus' name.
He writes:
"The third and perhaps most impressive gift of God in baptism
is the Spirit, the possession of which was frequently accompanied in the
earliest church by spectacular Charismatic gifts and signs. That
the gift should be associated with baptism is to be expected. For
baptism in the name of the Messiah Jesus related the believer to
the Lord of the kingdom, who had received the Spirit from the Father that
he might pour him forth upon his people..." (p. 104).
"...we cannot doubt that this inward sealing of the Spirit is conceived
as taking place in baptism in the name of Jesus, when the name was invoked
and called over the baptized..." (p. 174).
"thus the 'seal of the Spirit' is neither baptism in water, nor
a baptism in the Spirit divorced from the rite of baptism; it si the 'Baptism
of the Spirit' in association with the laying of the name of Jesus
on a believer in the rite of baptism" (p. 174).
"The seal of the Spirit however, is in inward possession which none
but God can see, apart from its effects in character, behaviour, and the
Charismata" (p. 175).
There is all the evidence one needs: over 400 pages of unbiased research
conducted by a world renown scholar of the Baptist Faith. His conclusion?
Baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins, accompanied by Spirit
baptism with charismatic evidences! Why was none of this impressive
array of evidence for the Jesus' name formula ever mentioned by Dr. Boyd?
Why, in the face of his mountain of research, did Dr. Boyd fail to quote
it even once? A scholar like Beasley-Murray is known in every theological
seminary, his reputation spans two continents, he carries the highest endorsements,
and his name occurs in many bibliographies. Yet he is never once
called to the stand by Dr. Boyd respecting the Jesus name formula.
Is this type of "exegesis" indicative of future trends in presenting "all
the facts?" Forbid it, Almighty God!
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOES TO "CONFESSION"
Perhaps the most astonishing proof of the alteration of the baptismal formula
from Jesus name to triune titles comes from the "alternators" themselves
-- the Catholic Church!
Some years ago, before I ever dreamed I would be writing this book,
I was driving past a thrift store when the Lord impressed on me to stop
and go in. I was not in the habit of doing this, but I obeyed.
Once inside the Lord directed me to a cabinet of old used books.
I began to search through them. There among the old books I found
an official Catholic Catechism, with the Bishop's "imprimatur" and "nihil
obstat." These are Latin terms which means the book is officially
approved as containing "nothing objectionable" or contrary to Catholic
teaching. Guided by the Lord I turned to the section dealing with
water baptism. It was then I realized why the Lord had been so patiently
directing my steps. I was astonished to read this official Catholic
admission concerning the original baptismal formula:
|
IN THIS ROMAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THAT THE ORIGINAL BAPTISM WAS, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS"
AND MUST HAVE BEEN CHANGED AFTER THE DISCIPLES' DEATH.
|
"The earliest practice of the Church was probably to baptize converts
'in the name of Jesus' (Acts 10:48; 19:5) since in baptism it was his Lordship
they confessed and into his body they were incorporated"
(An American Catholic Catechism, p. 112).
What more is needed? As Augustine said, "Rome has spoken; case closed!"
If that is not enough, then surely this quote from an equally "official"
Catholic Encyclopedia will provide the final "coup de grace" to this painfully
recalcitrant stonewalling by Trinitarians. It reads as follows:
"An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of Baptism cannot
be found in the first century" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York,
McGraw-Hill, 1967, p. 59).
"Higher mathematics" can surely be employed here by our opponents to put
"two and two together." For if the original formula was baptism in
Jesus' name (An American Catholic Catechism), and the Trinitarian formula
was unheard of for at least 100 years (New Catholic Encyclopedia),
then what conclusion is possible other than one which maintains that the
Triadic formula for baptism was an unapostolic invention, birthed late
in time, and devoid of New Testament precedent or approbation. The
Catholics admit it, the Baptists admit it, scholars admit it, historians
admit it -- in fact, among most critical New Testament researchers it's
not even considered a debatable point any longer! Why doesn't Dr.
Boyd come in? Its getting awfully cold out there. He once warmed
himself by the fires of this great truth, till an "ill wind" blew him elsewhere.
God grant that he return is my ascending prayer.
WILLISTON WALKER
Evidence continues to pour down upon u from every direction. Williston
Walker, noted historian adds:
"With the early disciples generally baptism was 'in the Name of Jesus
Christ'"
(Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 87).
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
And from the Encyclopedia Biblica:
" 'In the Name of Jesus Christ' or 'of the Lord Jesus.': The
former expression is used in Acts 2:38 and 10:48, The latter is used in
Acts 8:16 and 19:5. See also Acts 22:16... From these passages, and
from Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 1:13 ('Was Paul crucified for you, or
were ye baptized in the Name of Paul?') it is natural to conclude
that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the Name of Jesus
Christ' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by
the fact that the earliest forms of Baptismal Confession appears to have
been single -- not triple, as was the later creed."
(Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. 1, p. 473, 1899 edition).
Thus we have it from the word of scholarship and history. The verdict
is in -- Baptism in Jesus Name. This is unbiased evidence.
Not one of these men were personally baptized in Jesus Name. If they
espoused any faith at all, it was Trinitarian. But concerning the
Triune baptismal formula they are unanimous -- "not one example in the
whole New Testament," "doubtless" of later origin, "no evidence" for its
use, "no mention of it in the New testament," "not given in any description"
in the New Testament, and "no record can be discovered in the Acts."
This is all quite damaging to Dr. Boyd's "if the earliest disciples" theory.
I wouldn't want to be in court with these witnesses taking stand against
me. Their testimony for "Jesus Name" being the original formula is
equally compelling. For they consider the evidence "overwhelming"
and "convincing" being from "the earliest times," and "found in every account."
they find that "at the beginning" it is only "the single name." the
"New Testament knows only baptism in the Name of Jesus" for it was "administered
from the earliest times" and "confirmed" by "baptismal confessions."
What can Dr. Boyd and fellow Trinitarians say in the face of all this
evidence? Do they also believe the earth is flat?
NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNTS
These scholars all independently reached the same conclusion through an
examination of the baptismal accounts in the Book of Acts and the witness
of history. Let us turn our attention to the record of baptisms in
the New Testament Church.
JERUSALEM
The Jews on the day of Pentecost, together with their Gentile proselytes
were commanded to
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the
Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins
(Acts 2:38).
SAMARIA
Phillip the evangelist went there preaching the "Kingdom of God and the
Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12). Where upon the Samaritans in a
great city wide revival were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Act
8:16).
CAESAREA
Cornelius, and those of his household, the first Gentile believers, listened
carefully to Peter's sermon that through Jesus' Name "whosoever believeth
in him shall receive remission of sins" During the sermon they were
filled with the Holy Ghost and Peter therefore commanded that they should
"be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48 R.V.).
Being filled with the Holy Ghost did not excuse them from baptism in Jesus
Name, but rather made it incumbent upon them!
EPHESUS
Paul met some converts who knew only the teaching of John the Baptist,
having been baptized of him. Paul, in spite of this, ordered their
rebaptism in Jesus' Name after they learned fully of Christ:
And when they heard this they were baptized in
the Name of the Lord Jesus
(Acts 19:5).
Anyone learning this truth needs to be "rebaptized" from whatever other
form they had.
ETHIOPIA
Phillip joined himself to the chariot of the Ethiopian Eunuch, who was
traveling to his homeland, and preached Jesus unto him. When the
Ethiopian believed on Jesus Christ, "They went down both into the water,
both Phillip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). What
was Phillip's formula for baptism? Acts 8:16 informs us that it was
"in the name of the Lord Jesus." he certainly wouldn't change his
formula in one day.
DAMASCUS
Paul, blinded by his experience with Christ on the Damascus Road, makes
his way to that city to await healing and further instruction. This
is quick to arrive as Annanias enters the house and informs him:
"And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). Paul
was baptized with the "invocation of the Name of the Lord Jesus."
This required having the Name called "upon" him. Acts 15:17.
CORINTH
Paul, writing to this church which was torn by splits, puts these questions
to them:
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?
or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
(1 Cor. 1:13).
The obvious answers are: Paul was not crucified for them, Christ
was; they were not baptized in the Name of Paul, but in the Name of Christ.
Unless they were baptized in the name of the undivided Christ, his argument
would not make sense. Corinth was baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ.
ROME
The Church at Rome was "baptized into Jesus Christ":
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized
into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?
(Rom 6:3).
GALATIA
The Galatians likewise were baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ:
For as man of you as have been baptized into
Christ, have put on Christ
(Gal. 3:27).
COLOSSE
The Colossians were also "buried with Christ in baptism" (Col. 2:12), and
this is defined in Rom. 6:3 as a baptism "into Jesus Christ". Hence
the Colossians received the one Apostolic baptism -- in the name of Jesus
Christ!
All of the above mentioned churches were founded by either Peter or
Paul or Phillip. We know Peter's formula was "in the name of Jesus
Christ" (Acts 2:38, 10:48), Phillip's was in the Name of the Lord Jesus
(8:16). And the one Paul used was the same (Acts 19:5).. In the mouth
of two or three witnesses, let every thing be established.
THE FIRST
CHURCH COUNCIL AND BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME
In fact, the first Church Council, unlike subsequent Catholic Councils,
ruled that the Name of the Lord Jesus was to be called upon all Gentile
Converts. We read this in Acts 15:14-17 where it is stated that
"God at the first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for
his name." And how is this done? We are not left in the dark:
"That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles,
upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these
things." Now I ask, in what rite or ordinance does a believer have
the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ called "upon him" if it is not baptism
in that Name? Of all the Church Councils and their decrees that trinitarians
love to quote, why do they always pass this one by? Not much is said
about this baptismal creed, is there?
WHAT ABOUT MATTHEW 28:19?
The only thing that remains now is to reconcile these references with our
Lord's command in Matthew 28:19 in which the Apostles are commanded to
"teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And this task is easy to do. And
it is precisely in linking this command with the references in Acts that
produces automatically the reconciliation and perfect agreement of all
texts concerning water baptism.
REVELATION AND RECONCILIATION
To reconcile the command by Christ in Matthew 28:19 to "baptize in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" wit the passages
in Acts, in which all converts were baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ"
or "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is the task now before us.
Ingersoll, the famous atheist orator, frequently used this apparent contradiction
to show that the Bible contained discrepancies. But it is neither
a discrepancy nor a contradiction. If men would cease looking to
church councils for their "enlightenment," and return to the "fountain
of living waters," they would begin to see "all things clearly."
Boyd is sure that
"when Jesus commands us to baptize 'in the Name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' he is not cryptically making some
esoteric self-reference that must be decoded for believers to be baptized
correctly and therefore saved"
(Boyd, p. 143).
But in so stating, he contradicts the Lord, for Jesus told His disciples
that he was indeed speaking of the Father "cryptically" as Dr. Boyd phrases
it.
These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs
(parables -- margin): but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto
you in proverbs (parables), but I will show plainly of the Father
(John 16:25).
A parable must be "decoded" for it is "cryptic". His references to
the Father were in just such a category; not "plain" but "parabolic".
But Christ promised a time when the Spirit would arrive (John 14:16-19),
then they would get the promised revelation concerning the Father:
at that day ye shall know that I am in
my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
(John 14:20).
And that day, of course, would be Pentecost. It was on that day the
Apostles would receive the promised Revelation mentioned in Luke 10:22:
...and no man knoweth who the Son is but the
Father; and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will
reveal him.
By Christ's own definition, the baptismal reference in Matt. 28:19 to the
Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was one of His
parabolic statements, that would not be made plain until the day, namely
Pentecost, when they would receive the promised Revelation and have the
father shown plainly to them! And this occurred and right on time.
REVELATION AT PENTECOST
Carl Brumback in his book , God in Three Persons, disputes the Apostles
received any Godhead revelation on Pentecost and demands we show where
it was received.
"It is necessary for the Oneness to assume that Peter at Pentecost
received a 'revelation' that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, for it is not written!..."
(Brumback, p. 77).
But it is written and "plain to him that understandeth and right to them
that find knowledge" (Proverbs 8:9)! At the climax of his sermon,
Peter declares by divine revelation:
Therefore let all the House of Israel know assuredly
that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord
and Christ
(Acts 2:36).
It is obvious that something startling and apparently paradoxical is being
presented by the qualifying terms "same" and "both."
That one and the selfsame person could be both Lord and Christ,
is something that only God could have made happen! It s a
miracle! The word "Lord" here is "Kyrios," which is the Greek term
used in the New Testament for Jehovah. Wherever Jehovah appears in
the Old Testament, it is translated in the New by Kyrios. Thus the
Old Testament phrase in Joel that "whosoever shall call upon the name of
Jehovah shall be saved," is rendered in the New Testament by "whosoever
shall call upon the name of the Lord (Kyrios) shall be saved." So
Peter, in revealing Jesus as Lord and Christ, is actually announcing that
Jesus is both Jehovah and Messiah -- the same person is both!
Calling him Jehovah is the equivalent of calling him God or Father, for
the Jews believed in no other God than God the Father who had revealed
Himself under the Name Jehovah (Mal. 2:10, Isa. 63:16; 64:8 and John 8:41).
This same Jesus is also the Christ, the Anointed Man, the Son of
God who was born to save "his people from their sins."
Acts 4:26 makes it quote clear that Lord and Christ is simply another way
of saying Father and Son; and Jesus is both! It is now very "plain,"
no longer a "parable," but truly "revealed." This same Jesus is both
Father and Son, Jehovah and Christ, divine and human, God and Son of God,
in the one selfsame person of our Lord Jesus Christ! And God has
made this to happen, by raising Christ from the dead and simultaneously
taking up "residence" in His immortal glorified temple. So it could
be truly said that in Christ "dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
The Father is dwelling in the Son (John 14:10). Jehovah is embodied
in the flesh of His Messiah, the Christ. That is why when the Jews
cried out asking what to do, Peter commanded them to be baptized in Jesus'
Name -- for it is the Name of the Father, and of the Son; for this same
Jesus is both! Peter's command in Acts 2:38 is the divinely sanctioned
interpretation of what it means to be baptized in the Name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Hoy Spirit. And that's the only Biblical
explanation ever given!
MATTHEW 28:19 EXPLAINED
Let us now revisit Matthew 28:19 in the light of this revelation:
The first thing we notice is that Jesus refers to the One Name and One
Name Only. For "Name" is in the singular. He is not speaking
about "names," plural, but one name, singular. And this One Name
is -- the Name of the father, and also of the Son, and even more, it is
also the Name of the Holy Spirit. And it is in this One Name of the
Godhead we are to baptize.
THEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT
Dr. Boyd tries to downplay the significance of the singular name
in Matt 28:19 as of no great consequence:
"The bottom line is that there need be nothing theologically significant
about the singularity of 'the Name' in Matt. 28:19"
(Boyd, p. 143).
But my library is filled with book sin which Trinitarians have pondered
and tried to explain this singularity, and come up with all sorts of revelations
of their own! Many come close to the truth, but because like all
Trinitarians, they are "reasoning in chains", they never arrive.
For they are not allowed to stray too far from their man devised creeds
which bind them fast to their "distinct person theory." Take for
example this quote from Robert L. Reymond, Presbyterian:
"Jesus does not say 'into the names (plural) of the Father, and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit' ...What he does say is this, 'into the
name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit';
first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within
the bounds of single name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinction
of each..."
(Robert L. Reymond, Jesus Divine Messiah, p. 84).
This "singular name" comment was so theologically appealing that Ron Rhodes
has reproduced it in his book, Christ Before the Manger, on. p.
28.
Andrew Jukes found it intriguing and also "theologically significant"
for he writes:
"First then 'the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost' is one name, not three or many. Our Lord did not say, 'Baptizing
them into the names' but 'into the name, of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit'"
(Andrew Jukes, The Names of God, p. 174-175).
So we are not the only ones who notice something "theologically significant"
about the singular name! But the significance of it is not in uniting
"three persons" but in revealing One!
FINDING THE ONE NAME
Seeing Jesus declared there is but one name common to the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, let us find that name scripturally.
THE NAME OF THE SON
We shall start to solve this equation by considering the middle factor
first. What is the Name of the Son? This is easy and all Christendom
is in agreement. The Name of the Son is Jesus. "And she shall
bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall
save his people from their sins" Matt 1:21.
But the writer of Hebrews tells us that Jesus "inherited" his name,
for "he hat by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name" (Heb.
1:4). From whom did he therefore inherit this name; the name the
angel brought down from heaven?
THE NAME OF THE FATHER
Jesus does not leave us in doubt as to whose name it was he bore.
In John 5:43 he declares:
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive
me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
This name was not "his own name," but had been His Father's name before
Him! He came bearing the Name of the Father. The name Jesus
is also the Father's name! The original Greek of John 17:11,12 brings
this out clearly. I am quoting from the Revised Version:
Holy Father, keep them in thy Name which thou
has given me
and
I kept them in Thy Name which Thou has given
me.
Weymouth's Translation reads:
I have kept them in thy Name -- The Name Thou
hast given me to bear.
No wonder Christ could say "I have manifested thy name!" (John 17:6).
The only name he ever manifested was "Jesus" for "his name was spread abroad"
(Mark 6:14). Is it unusual for a Father and Son to have the same
name? Doesn't every legitimate Son bear his father's name?
Jesus said "I have declared unto them thy Name, and will declare it" (John
17:26). Aren't the mighty signs and wonders being done in Jesus'
Name, and the Baptisms being performed in Jesus' Name, a fulfillment of
Christ's prophecy that he "will declare it."
MEANING OF THE NAME OF JESUS
And why should there be any doubt that Jesus is also the name of the Father?
The Name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Jahoshea" (or Joshua) which
means "Jehovah the Saviour." When you say the Name Jesus, you are
actually saying in contracted form "Jehovah the Saviour." The "Je"
is from "Jehovah," God's revealed name in the Old Testament.
Even Trinitarians admit the name Jehovah is applied to the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, their entire "Trinity." Then why would not the name
Jesus (Jehovah-Saviour) be equally applicable to all "three persons," especially
seeing that all three play an indispensable part in the plan of Salvation?
We have thus seen the name of the Father and of the Son is included
in the Name of Jesus. All that remains is to determine the Name of
the Holy Ghost.
NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST
The final piece of this Name revelation falls into place beautifully.
Like the Temple of Solomon, in which each stone was first quarried and
polished, and then brought to Jerusalem and silently fitted into place,
so the name of the Holy Ghost moves by divine utterance into the completed
trilogy.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom
the Father will send in My Name, he shall teach you all things...
(John 14:26).
-- The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, comes to earth in Jesus' Name, bearing
Jesus' name, and manifesting it. How could it be otherwise for the
Comforter is Jesus?!
I will not leave you comfortless, I will come
to you.
(John 14:18).
For this same reason he is called the Spirit of Christ, and Christ (Romans
8:9-10). "Christ in you" (Col. 1:27), or in other words, Christ in
His Spirit nature come to dwell in us.
NAME OF
THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST IS JESUS
Thus we have seen demonstrated clearly and simply from the lips of Christ
Himself that the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
is Jesus. For the Son's Name is Jesus, and He bore the Father's Name,
who sent the Spirit with the same Name!
In Proverbs we are asked:
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended?
who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a
garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his
name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Prov 30:4
Thanks to Oneness light -- we can tell! It is Jesus!
THE APOSTLES AGREE
That our conclusion is correct concerning the "Name of the Father, and
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" is proven by the witness of the Apostles.
For they were commanded to baptize in the one name of the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost. All their baptisms were performed in the Name of Jesus.
therefore by comparison it is quickly seen that they recognized the name
of Jesus as the one Name referred to in Matt 28:19. (See Acts 2:38;
8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16).
And it is through this name, and no other, that the door to cleanness
and justification is open to us through water baptism.
And such were some of you: but ye are washed,
but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus,
and by the Spirit of our God.
1Cor 6:11
THE "NAMELESS" BAPTISM
Panicking in the face of this tidal wave of scriptural evidence for Baptism
in Jesus' Name, Dr. Boyd unveils to our astonished eyes one of the most
bizarre theories ever advanced against the truth. He decided to take
the "bull by the horns" and throw out all baptismal formulas, trinitarian
and Oneness, and reduce Christian baptism to a wordless initiation!
His desperation to rid the church of the New testament Formula of Jesus'
Name seems to know no bounds. He is even willing to sacrifice the
cherished Trinitarian formula as the price to pay. He has, so to
speak, untie the Gordian Knot by cutting it in two! Nettled by the
truth of the New Testament, and cornered by Church History, he opts to
throw out not only "the baby with the bathwater" but the bathtub also!
Hear him as he boldly goes "where angels fear to tread." We read,
"Because the Semitic phrase 'in the name of ' could have such a wide
variety of meanings, there is no more reason to take the Acts phrase 'in
the Name of Jesus' as an audible liturgical formula than there is
to think that the Matthean formula was to be taken like this"
(p. 111).
Better no formula, than "Jesus' Name" is his motto. We have often
pointed out to trinitarians in the past that if the phrase "in the name
of Jesus" is interpreted to only mean "by the authority of" and thereby
eliminated as a spoken formula, then the same interpretation must be applied
to "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" and that too would be
eliminated as a formula. The point we were trying to make was that
the whole interpretation was wrong in the first place. Most Trinitarians
have seen it that way once it was pointed out, and abandoned that interpretation
rather than part wit their formula. Dr. Boyd on the other hand has
decided to use this incorrect interpretation (as I will prove) to eliminate
both formulas! Of course to do this he flies in the face of two thousand
years of Church practice, and proposes something even the Arian heretics
dared not try. Augustine, Tertulllian, Aquinas, the Cappodocians
and every other "great saint" of the church he so admires would curse him
for it (and some like the "great reformer" John Calvin, would burn him
for it!)
THE EFFECT OF THE "NO-NAME"
DOCTRINE
One can only imagine the effect such a "pro-choice", renegade theory would
unleash in the Church World if it were taken seriously (which, Thank God,
no one does!) Ministers would begin tailor fitting their own baptismal
formulas to meet the occasion. Compromises would be made to the point
of lunacy. I can almost hear some modern day "love is all that matters"
preacher standing on the shore line in California (why is it always California?)
with his new convert:
MINISTER: And what say ye of the "Faith once delivered to the saints?"
CANDIDATE: I think it's neat, man!
MINISTER: And what think ye of the Christ?
CANDIDATE: He was cool, like really cool, you follow?
MINISTER: Yes, yes, I follow, "Upon the confession of your faith I
now Baptize you into the neatness of Christianity and the coolness
of Christ. Amen!"
Don't think I am exaggerating or being ludicrous for the sake of argument.
Today's' ever adapting, relativistic church, needs little encouragement
to fly off into such "meaningful" excursions into "restructuring."
The "wild blue yonder" is always beckoning them!
OPENING PANDORA'S BOX
Dr. Boyd would open such a Pandora's Box, and rob baptism of any fixed
scriptural significance, just to fulfill some strange obsession against
Oneness and anything related to it. His "latest thing down the tubes"
theory is as unacceptable as it is bizarre -- and totally unnecessary.
I had once heard of a Pastor in the midwest who pronounced the baptismal
formula in "unknown tongues" so as to avoid any confrontation over
which formula was correct! And I though that would never be topped
in my lifetime. But I am afraid that in this category, Dr. Boyd
sweeps away an Oscar for Best Performance.
IS THE FORMULA VERBAL?
What he is saying through his "Semitic phrase" arguments is simply that
when the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" occurs in Acts it does not
represent something verbal or actually uttered. It is a rather saccharine-like
atmosphere or state of mind:
"When it is said that certain believers were baptized 'in the Name
of the lord Jesus,' this need mean nothing more than what is meant by giving
a cup of cold water to someone 'in the name of a disciple' "
(Boyd, p. 144).
He goes on:
"It merely means that baptism 'for the forgiveness of sins'
derives its significance and beauty from the person of Jesus Christ to
whom it centrally points" (p. 144).
And all this without saying His Name; you just point, don't talk!
In fact he says there was no evidence before the fourth century "that the
words spoken over a candidate at baptism were any big deal." (p.
145). No big deal, you see, just say what you want; lets get it over
with!
Thank God we are not left to his interpretation, but we have the record,
for again "it is written!"
PROOF OF VERBAL FORMULA
Does "in the name of Jesus" mean to verbally pronounce it? It certainly
does! Here is the proof:
The disciples were commanded to heal the sick and cast out devils in
"Jesus' Name" (Mark 16:17-18). How did they use the name? Verbally!
Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none;
but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth rise up and walk.
Acts 3:6
It was quite a "big deal" for that poor lame man, for he went into the
temple "walking, and leaping, and praising God." (v. 8). Does
Dr. Boyd suppose it would have been just as effective if Peter and John
had just pointed up to Heaven, silently, and smiled, until the lame
man understood the "significance and beauty" of it all? The Apostles
felt differently; they uttered the Name!
Another case comes to mind. This one involving the demon possession
of a certain damsel.
But Paul, being grieved, turned and said
to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out
of her. And he came out the same hour.
Acts 16:18
It must have been a "big deal" for the demon, for "he came out the same
hour." And it was a verbally uttered formula that did it.
When they prayed "in Jesus' Name" they said it. The apostolic
prayer in Acts 4 concludes
By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that
signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus
Acts 4:30
and...
...when they had prayed, the place was shaken
where they were assembled together
Acts 4:31.
Whether this was "significant and beautiful " I cannot tell, but it certainly
was powerful! If healing "in Jesus Name" was verbal, and if expelling
demons "in Jesus Name" was verbal, and if praying "in Jesus Name" was verbal,
why does Dr. Boyd insist baptism "in Jesus' Name" was not?
I prefer the scriptural examples, to his "Semitic theories."
SCHOLARS TESTIFY TO VERBAL
FORMULA
Now for the testimony of Greek Scholarship. Arndt and Gingrich point out
that the phrase "in the name of" (in to onomati) used with God or Jesus
means in most cases "with mention of the name, while naming or calling
on the name" (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 572).
The same authorities also mention that the verb "called" (epikoleo) in
Acts 15:17 ("all the gentiles upon whom my name is called") means:
"someone's name is called over someone to designate the latter as property
of the former's" (p. 572).
This same verb "called" is used in James 2:7 which says:
Do not they blaspheme that worthy
name by the which ye are called?
James 2:7
The Amplified Bible's Commentary states that this is "the Name of
Christ invoked at baptism" (The Amplified Bible, p. 360).
Dr. Gore writes in his thoroughly researched history of early church
practice :
"And the shelter of that name belongs to those only who have had it
invoked upon them in baptism and have received the Spirit of Jesus within
them."
(Gore, Reconstruction, p. 640).
Dr. Armitage Robinson says:
"It is plain that the phrase 'in the name of' indicates some solemn
utterance by the accompaniment of which the washing of water is made
to be no ordinary bath, but the sacrament of baptism"
(Robinson, Ephesians, p. 234).
He further states:
"It is probable then that the 'name' here referred to (in 1 Cor. 1:13
-- ed.) is the solemn mention of the Lord Jesus Christ in connection
with the rite of baptism whether as the confession made by the candidate,
or as the formula employed by the ministrant"
(Robinson, Ephesians, p. 234).
PICK A PHRASE, ANY PHRASE!
Everything draws to the same conclusion, -- (Bible Scholarship, Linguistics,
Reason) -- something had to have been said, something was said, and that
something was the Name of Jesus. But this will not do for
Dr. Boyd. On pages 142 to 143 he serves up no less than eight different
interpretations of what "in the name of" could mean; what he calls a "wide
variety of applications." And we'll see how wide!
It could mean:
"in relation to," "with respect to its intentions," "with an
obligation towards," "in the authority of," or "a principal of behaviour."
It could even mean
"With a view towards" "in the light of" or "in appreciation of."
Take one of them, or two of them, any of them, all of them, or none of
them! Just so you don't verbally utter the name of Jesus. You
have quite a selection so don't be hasty. If one "doesn't get you
out of it" the next one will. Plenty of griss for this mill!
It seems strange indeed that any Christian would expend so much energy
trying to prevent the Name of Jesus from being spoken.
APOSTOLIC APPLICATION
How long shall [this] be in the heart of the
prophets that prophesy lies? yea, [they are] prophets of the deceit of
their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name
by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour,
Jeremiah 23:26-27
The Apostles certainly didn't have this attitude. They were commanded
to "speak henceforth to no man in this name" (Acts 4:17) and that they
"should not teach in this name" (Acts 5:28). They certainly were
doing more than just "pointing" or "thinking". They must have been
wielding that Name verbally. Saul's goal was to destroy
"them that call on His Name" (Acts 9:21). He must have heard something!
When the Jewish rulers demanded of Peter and John "by what power or by
what name have ye done this?" (Acts 4:7), Peter answered for all Oneness
believers when he verbally said, "By the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth , whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead."
(v.10)
Neither is there salvation in any other:
for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must
be saved.
Acts 4:12
PHANTOM FORMULAS
Thus in an attempt to eliminate any formula for baptism, Dr. Boyd has gotten
his feet all tangled up in flight. He first maintained that
there was a "small amount of evidence in favour of the Jesus' Name forumla"
(p. 141). Then he refers to third century references to "the Trinitarian
Formula or mode for baptism 'along side' the supposed 'Jesus Only
formula' " (p. 141). Next he finds the Trinitarian formula becomes
"the dominant formula for baptism" from the beginning of the Second Century
on. (p. 142). And finally ending on the high note that there really was
no formula at all, Trinitarian or Oneness! (p. 143). These formulas
are very ethereal -- first they exist "side by side," then one is "dominant"
over the other, and then we must learn they weren't there at all!
Under what lack of evidence must a writer labour who resorts to such argument?
Phantom formulas that appear and disappear like apparitions in the night!
