CHAPTER XIX
VOICE OF HISTORY
ARE TRINITARIANS CORRECT WHEN THEY INSIST THERE IS NOT ONE "SHRED
OF EVIDENCE" THAT THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA WAS CHANGED?
DO UNBIASED HISTORIANS AGREE?
DID A SO-CALLED "ECUMENICAL COUNCIL" OUTLAW JESUS NAME BAPTISM?
IS INVOKING JESUS NAME THE SAME AS USING "MAGICAL INCANTATIONS"?
EARLY
CHURCH HISTORY ON JESUS NAME BAPTISM // CYPRIAN
AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM // A TREATISE
ON REBAPTISM // AMBROSE AND
JESUS NAME BAPTISM // COUNCIL
OF CONSTANTINOPLE // EARLY
WRITINGS AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM // SHEPHERD
OF HERMAS // DIDACHE // IRENAEUS
// MARCION // ACTS OF
PAUL AND THECLA // RECOGNITION OF CLEMENT
// JESUS NAME -- THE ORIGINAL
FORMULA // CONTROVERSY ON MATTHEW
28:19 // EUSEBIUS // CONYBEARE
// MATTHEW 28:19 AND ONENESS ADVOCATES
// TRINITARIAN VARIATIONS // THE
NAME OF THE LORD METHOD // NAME
OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST METHOD // GODHEAD
NAME METHOD // DISPENSATIONAL METHOD
// MAGICAL INCANTATION OR BIBLICAL
INVOCATION? // TERTULLIAN
ANSWERS DR. BOYD'S CHARGE // TRINITARIAN
GNOSTIC INCANTATION // DR. KITTEL'S FINAL
WORD // TOYING WITH THE GREEK // PERSONAL
INCIDENTS // DIVINE GUIDANCE
FOR JEANNE FOWLER // JOEY
BRAY'S REMARKABLE DELIVERANCE //
EARLY CHURCH HISTORY
ON JESUS NAME BAPTISM
Dr. Boyd is in quite a hurry to sweep church history under the rug
in order to get on with his multi-explanations of what "in the Name of"
could mean. He unilaterally declares that there is not "one shred
of evidence" over the introduction of a new baptismal formula in church
history. He remarks that the early church "quibbled" about a good
many issues, but the use of the Trinitarian formula was not one of them.
Amazing how all these raging Godhead debates and Councils have now been
reduced to a "quibble." Putting that aside, let us see if there are any
"shreds" of controversy lying around in the dusty tomes of early church
history.
CYPRIAN AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM
Quite a large controversy erupted in the third century between Cyprian,
a theologian of North Africa, and the Bishop of Rome, Stephen. Cyprian
insisted that "heretics" who were baptized in Jesus Name be rebaptized
in the Trinity. Cyprian set off a controversy that drew in others.
Firmillian, Bishop of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) wrote Cyprian and quoted
Pope Stephen as saying that anyone baptized in "the name of Christ, immediately
obtains the grace of Christ." Cyprian argued back against this saying even
Baptism in Jesus Name, performed outside the Catholic Church, was invalid
because it had not been administered by the Church's jurisdiction.
The Pope stubbornly insisted that baptism in the name of Christ did indeed
remit sin. I think an argument that involves these Bishops, on three
continents over a number of years and results in a decision from the See
of Rome; certainly qualifies as 'Shred" of evidence that there was some
":quibbling going on." (see Cyprian, Epistles, 72.00, A.N.F. V, p.
383)
A TREATISE ON REBAPTISM
Further evidence comes from an anonymous document of this time period entitled,
"A Treatise on Rebaptism," in which the author (believed to be a Third
Century Bishop) argued in favour of the validity of Jesus Name baptism,
thus hurling another challenge to Cyprian's view. Apparently the
debate was quite ongoing. The author concluded his presentation with
the statement: "Heretics who are already baptized in water in the Name
of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Spirit." (see, A.N.F., V,
p.665-78)
AMBROSE AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM
In the Fourth Century Ambrose (340-398) argued baptism in Jesus Name was
valid, even though it didn't mention "The Name of the Whole Trinity." (see
Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit I, iii, p.43, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers,
Phillip Schaff, editor).
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
By 381, tolerance for the original Jesus Name formula came to an end.
The Council of Constantinople condemned "Sabbellian" baptism (as they called
it) and in addition to the "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" the practice
of "one immersion into the death of Christ" was outlawed and the triple
immersion in the Trinity was declared the only valid one. (see, A.N.F,
VII, p.513)
There's more than a shred of controversy going on here. It certainly
seems that "two formulas" are locked in battle -- one "in Jesus Name,"
the other in the name of the Trinity: one, the Trinitarian formula, is
decreed the "winner" by imperial force; the other is outlawed. Why
was all this passed over so hastily, if we can be that charitable, by Dr.
Boyd? Could it be that the next most logical question to arise would be
which formula was the first one? And as Trinitarians have long realized,
the answer to that question is fatal to their contention.
EARLY WRITINGS AND
JESUS NAME BAPTISM
Let's look at some of the early writings and see if there is something
among these "shreds" that could throw light on which was the original formula.
The earliest witness we have after the close of the Apostolic writings
(which are all unanimous on the Jesus Name formula) is the "Epistle to
the Corinthians" by Clement of Rome. This is the next generation
after the Apostle John, and what does Clement say of the baptismal formula?
He refers to it in these words:
"Every soul over whom his magnificent and holy name has been invoked."
A comparison with Acts 15:17 and 22:16, shows this to be an obvious
reference to the only name ever so invoked in Apostolic times -- the Name
of Jesus (Cyril Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, New York; MacMillan
1970, p. 73).
SHEPHERD OF HERMAS
The next early witness we have is "The Shepherd of Hermas" a very popular
writing in the early Second Century Church. It was written in Rome
(140-145) by an unknown individual. It was recognized in some churches
as scripture and read aloud during the service. Here it is baptism
in Jesus Name again and again. He speaks of Christian being saved
"through water" and "founded on the word of The Almighty and Glorious Name"
(Vis. 3:3); and of those who "wish to be baptized in the Name of
the Lord" (Vis. 3:7); and "before a man bears the Name of the Son
of God, he is dead" but when they are sealed by baptism "they descend into
the water dead and they arise alive" (Sim. 9:16). He speaks
of being worthy "to bear his name" (Sim. 9:28); and no one enters
into the Kingdom of God without the Name of Jesus, which they must receive
(Sim. 9:12).
DIDACHE
The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is another early Second
Century document. It refers to Baptism in this manner:
"Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized
into the name of the Lord" (9:5).
Another chapter (7:1) also referred to baptism in the "Name of the Lord"
but was altered by a copyist who inserted the triune formula instead, and
references to "pouring" instead of immersion. That this was a latter
mutilation of the text is substantiated by the fact that "pouring" was
a much later Catholic innovation. The Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics states that perhaps chapter 7:1 originally read "in the name of
the Lord" like chapter 9:5 (vol. 2, p. 378).
IRENAEUS
Irenaeus, a famous theologian and early father, who died in 200 A.D., writes:
"We are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the
Lord" (A.F.N., I, p. 574).
MARCION
Marcion who broke away from the Church at this time baptized in Jesus Name
and his followers continued to use this formula (see A.N.F., V, p.380).
ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA
The "Acts of Paul and Thecla" written by an eastern Presbyter in the second
century also records an account of baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ
(see A.N.F., VIII, p. 490).
"In the name of Jesus Christ I am baptized on my last day," is one statement
that appears there.
RECOGNITION OF CLEMENT
The "Recognition of Clement" of late Second Century origin stated:
"Jesus instituted baptism by water amongst them, in which they might
be absolved of all their sins upon the invocation of his Name" (Recognition
1:39).
JESUS NAME -- THE ORIGINAL FORMULA
The early witness of the Church, right after the death of the Apostles,
indicates a continued practice of baptism in Jesus Name. It isn't
until the time of Justin Martyr that we begin to see another formula, a
Triune one, creeping in. In the Second and Third Centuries the two
formulas are in use (even as they are today). But it is quite obvious
which one is "the new kid on the block." Trinitarian baptism is an unapostolic
innovation that eventually replaced the original Jesus Name formula.
And that is precisely the reason why unprejudiced scholars and church historians,
which we previously cited, are in agreement with our position.
CONTROVERSY ON MATTHEW 28:19
Some scholars have even gone so far as to say Matthew 28:19 was a later
"interpolation." Professor Harnback dismisses the text almost contemptuously
as being "now word of the Lord." (History of Dogma, vol. I, p. 68).
Dr. Peake says in Bible Commentary:
"The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal
expansion. Instead of the words, 'baptizing them into the Name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' we should probably read simply 'into
my Name' " (p. 723).
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, sates under the article,
Baptism-Early Christian:
"The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (textual,
literary and historical) is thus distinctly against the view that Matthew
28:19 represents the exact words of Christ."
R.R. Williams concurs:
"The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show the influence
of a developed doctrine of God verging of Trinitarianism. Early baptism
was in the name of Christ" (Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. 29).
Black's Bible Dictionary says:
"The Trinitarian Formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some
reverent Christian mind" (article, Baptism).
EUSEBIUS
Eusebius lived between A.D. 264-340. He was a voluminous writer
and compiled the earliest history of the ancient Christian Church.
He had access to New Testament manuscripts that are much older than the
ones we now have. Thus he had the advantage of being much closer
to the original writing of Matthew 28:19. Yet he never quoted it
in the Triune formula, but in all his citations (which number eighteen
or more) he renders the text as: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations
IN MY NAME, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded
you." Only after Nicaea does he alter this!
CONYBEARE
Conybeare, the church historian, informs us that Eusebius lived virtually
in the greatest Christian library of his time, namely that which Origen
and Pamphilus had collected at Caesarea, Eusebius' home. In his library,
Eusebius must have handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred
years than the earliest uncials that we now have in our libraries.
Dr. Westcott says it is owing to the zeal of Eusebius that we know
most of what is known of the history of the New testament. (Westcott,
General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New testament, p. 108).
Certainly, as a witness, he cannot be ignored. Perhaps the most compelling
evidence we get from Eusebius is that after his visit to Constantinople
and his attendance at the Council of Nicea, he changed his references
to Matthew 28:19 and began quoting it in the triune formula! Thus he switched
to the Trinitarian rendering immediately after Nicea, with its imperial
threats of banishment to all who reject the newly officialized Trinity
doctrine. Hew never knew or quoted any other form but the "My name"
rendition until his visit to Nicea. Discretion appears to be the
better part of valour in his case!
MATTHEW 28:19 AND ONENESS ADVOCATES
Let it be pointed out that the UPCI and other Oneness organizations have
no quarrel with Matthew 28:19 as it is found in the Authorized Version.
Indeed, it forms an indispensable scriptural link in our revelation, not
only of Baptism, but of the Godhead also. For if the Name is one,
the person is one. We have shown previously how a complete and enlightening
reconciliation of Matthew 28:19 with the passages in Acts is possible,
not only from a Oneness perspective, but from a Trinitarian one as well.
We have included the textual discussion of Matthew 28:19 and the related
witness of Eusebius simply to make the discussion complete and to expose
our readers to this facet of the question. I know of no Oneness organization
that endorses any other reading of Matthew 28:19 than what we have in the
Textus Receptus. However, facts are facts and stubborn things at
that, for they refuse to go away. Perhaps archaeology or Biblical
Research will yield more light on this interesting phase of the discussion
in the future. The beauty of the Oneness position is that regardless
of which rendering of Matthew 28:19 is the correct one, the conclusion
is still the same -- baptism in Jesus Name. For to us, and the Apostles,
Christ's reference to "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit" was just a longer way of saying "my name." When people finally
realize this, the textual conflict may resolve itself almost automatically.
For Christ may have uttered both statements on that mountain long
ago.
TRINITARIAN VARIATIONS
Trinitarian scholars themselves come up with no less than four different
methods of reconciling Matthew 28:19 with the passages in Acts, resulting
in a literal use of the name of Jesus Christ in baptism today. None
of these men believe in the Oneness, but all of them advocate baptism in
Jesus Name as the proper way to obey Christ's command in the last chapter
of Matthew. We shall review them briefly with the understanding that
they are being set forth as additional testimony. None of these four
"reconciliations" is official Oneness doctrine, and their mention here
does not imply endorsement. However, they all possess merit to some
degree and are certainly worth our time.
THE NAME OF THE LORD METHOD
This is perhaps the oldest explanation for Baptism in Jesus Name in modern
times. It even preceded the revelation given in 1913 in California.
William Phillips Hall popularized it in his book "Remarkable Biblical
Discovery" or "The Name of God According to the Scriptures."
This book was originally published by the American Tract Society, and has
been republished in abridged form by the Pentecostal Publishing House.
The author was a brilliant scholar, studied both Hebrew and Greek, and
was well esteemed by Bible Teachers of his day. His book received
excellent reviews at the time of publication, and is quoted still.
Hall feels his views about the baptismal formula being in Jesus Name were
"imparted to him by the Glorified Lord Jesus Christ" (Remarkable Biblical
Discovery, P.P.H., St. Louis, 1951, p. 5). Basically, the
reconciliation is accomplished as follows: The Name of the Father is Lord
(Mark 12:29-30, Isa. 42:8), the name of the Son is Lord (Acts 2:36,
1 Cor 8:6), and the Name of the Holy Spirit is Lord (2 Cor. 3:17).
hence, the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is
Lord. But this name can only be used in conjunction with the name
of Jesus Christ, who is the one mediator and the only way to God.
Hence, the apostles always used the full expression "Lord Jesus Christ"
which combined the Name of the Godhead (Lord) with that of the mediator
(Jesus Christ). See for example 1 Cor. 5:4, 2 Cor. 11:31,
Acts 20:21, Acts 16:31, etc. Hall does a remarkable piece of research
proofing that the original baptismal formula in Acts was consistently "in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" according to the most ancient manuscripts
and sources. The references we have today (Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ,
Lord) are abbreviated forms of the original full name -- Lord Jesus Christ.
NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
METHOD
This interpretation was also used occasionally by Oneness expositors in
the early days of the Movement. It is only rarely heard in Oneness
circles today, but is popular among some Trinitarians.
While visiting a very large Trinitarian church in Texas, I purchased
the book entitled "The Name of God" by Kevin Conner, published by
the author. It was being sold in their bookstore at the time and
highly recommended. Rev. Conner's book carries an endorsement
by Rev. K.R. Iverson, Pastor of Bible Temple in Portland, Oregon,
a Trinitarian church. The basic explanation is this: The Name of
the Father is Lord (Luke 10:21, Isa. 42:8), the Name of the Son is
Jesus (Matthew 1:21), the Name of the Holy Spirit is Christ (Col.
1:27); thus the one name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Lord Jesus
Christ (Conner, p. 115-116). And, of course, he reaches same conclusions
as Hall, namely that the original baptismal formula texts in Acts are all
"in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."
James Lee Beall, Pastor of Bethesda Temple in Detroit, Michigan, espouses
the exact same interpretation in his book "Rise to Newness of Life"
on pages 60-61, (Rise to Newness of Life, James Lee Beall, Evangel
Press, Detroit, Michigan). Pastor Beall is also a Trinitarian and
well known Bible teacher and author. He also baptizes in the Name
of the Lord Jesus Christ.
GODHEAD NAME METHOD
Basically this method teaches that seeing the "fullness of the Godhead
dwells bodily in Jesus Christ" then his name must be the name of the Godhead.
In other words, in the Trinitarian scheme of things the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit are revealed and manifested in the second person Christ; therefore
his name is also the name which reveals and manifests all three persons.
In her book "The Exalted Name" Lucy Knott stated: "In the Lord Jesus
Christ dwelleth all the Fullness of the Godhead bodily. The Exalted
Name must needs show forth the Father and the Spirit as well as the Son.
While the Son bears the exalted name, the Father and Spirit are equally
exalted for they are all one in essence" (The Exalted Name, Lucy
Knott, Nazarene Publishing House, Kansas City, Missouri 1937, p. 226-227).
DISPENSATIONAL METHOD
In response to a question on the correct baptismal formula, Dr..
Pettingill, in his book "Bible Questions Answered," let loose yet
another interpretation that results in a Jesus Name baptismal formula.
This one is by far the most unusual, but it apparently satisfied the good
Doctor, who was a firm believer in Baptism in Jesus Name. He basically
argues, from an extreme dispensational point of view, that the Matthew
28:19 command is part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. He therefore
calls it the "Kingdom Commission." Furthermore he adds:
"of course, we are well aware that it is often spoken of as the Great
Commission of the Church, but we are convinced that this is an error."
He feels Matthew is "Kingdom" territory and does not apply to the Church
Age, but will take effect only after Christ returns. To prove this
he says:
"Let it be observed also that the baptisms of the Acts are not 'into
the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' but rather
'into the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5).
...The Name of the Lord Jesus is in this day and dispensation the name
which is above every name, and whatsoever we do in word or deed is to be
done in the Name of the Lord Jesus..." (William L. Pettingill, D.D.,
Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1973, p. 106-107).
The subconscious desire of Trinitarians to conform to the obvious pattern
of Jesus Name Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, coupled with their unwillingness
to part with their Trinitarian Theology has led to this brood of hybrid
and novel attempts at reconciliation. Though there is merit in all
of them, and much merit in some of them, the simple explanation of our
Lord (John 5:43, 14:26) as to what constitutes the one Name of the father,
Son and Holy Ghost is to be preferred. And it is that light which
is shining brightly in the Oneness movement, which is now encircling the
globe in preparation for the return of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus
Christ!
MAGICAL INCANTATION OR BIBLICAL
INVOCATION?
In his final attempt to discredit those of us who "in every place call
upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord," he resurrects an old charge
that "magic" and pagan "incantations" designed to manipulate God.
That a 20th Century Christian would find common cause with first and second
century heathens in opposing the invocation of Jesus name is as startling
as it is revolting!
On page 144 Dr. Boyd compares our invocation to a "magical formula said
during an act." He feels it presents a "return to a form of
paganism in which it is believed that deities can be manipulated to behave
in certain ways by the utilization of certain incantations and formulas
invoked by devotees" (p. 145). "Magical incantations upon which God's
forgiveness rests" is how he characterizes our doctrine of "in the name
of Jesus."
How well does that sit with the thousands, yea millions, of Christians,
who over the centuries have sent their earnest petitions heavenward "in
Jesus Name?" How would the humble Christian mother, praying for the
healing of her suffering child "in Jesus' Name," feel when informed by
Dr. Boyd that her use of the "name above every name" was a "pagan incantation,"
and that what she thought was "faith in that name" was actually an attempt
at "manipulating the deity!"
And what shall we say of that "Magician" Peter who "verbally" repeated
His Jesus Name "incantation" at the Gate Beautiful and "manipulated" the
Deity to such an extent that the lame man immediately received strength
in his feet and ankle bones and was healed! He himself was so happy
with this "incantation" that he went leaping and walking and praising God.
Peter's explanation for "verbally" using the name of Jesus differs somewhat
from Dr. Boyd's explanation. For when those first century haters
of the "formula" asked him: "By what power or by what name" have ye done
this, his response was: "ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel,
if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by
what means he is made whole: Be it known to you all, and to all the people
of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified,
whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand before you
whole" (Acts 4:7-10). That was Peter's explanation of both his "magic
trick" and his "incantation!"
John Wesley's converts were once accused by a detractor of suffering
from "epileptic fits." IN this way he "explained" away the spiritual
manifestations occurring in Wesley's enthusiastic meetings.
Wesley's answer was :
"Epilepsy? Sinners are converted, backsliders return, doubters
are convinced, drunks become sober, and thieves become honest working men!
If this be epilepsy then I say, Roll On, thou Mighty Epilepsy, Roll On."
So if our use of Jesus Name be magic, then I would say in the tradition
of Wesley, "Roll On thou mighty Magic, Roll on!"
TERTULLIAN ANSWERS DR. BOYD'S
CHARGE
Tertullian faced the same charges in the early Christian Church from pagans,
who viewed Christian Baptism as an attempt to gain eternal life through
"incanting" of a few words and a ritual bath in water. Anyone who
sees only that in Christian baptism, or any other invocation of His Name,
has very myopic vision indeed! And unfortunately, Dr. Boyd shares
the same viewpoint concerning our Baptism in Jesus Name as those early
pagans espoused, and the same answer Tertullian gave is still applicable:
"Yet what a miserable incredulity is this which leads you to deny to
God His special properties" (Simplicity With Power, Tertullian, de Baptism,
p.2 ).
Jesus Christ forever negated the charge leveled against our use of the
name, by Dr. Boyd and others, when he said: "If ye shall ask anything
in my name, I will do it" (John 14:14). If that's "incantation"
and "manipulation" so be it! More on this so-called "magic" formula
is brought out in John 16:24: "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in
my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." We
ask "in His Name" and our joy is quite full. Christ had just previously
defined the nature of this "incantation -- manipulation" so called, when
he said in verse 23 "Whatsoever ye shall as the father My Name,
He will give it to you." Dr. Boyd's argument therefore is not wit
us, but with the Father!
TRINITARIAN GNOSTIC INCANTATION
If Dr. Boyd is serious about his aversion to "pagan incantations" in Christianity,
he doesn't have to look any further than his own Trinitarian faith.
For the Nicene Creed, which is "encanted" in many Trinitarian churches
as part of the liturgy, has a Gnostic pagan phrase at its heart!
I quote from "The Heretics" by Walter Nigg. Commenting on the phrase,
"one in essence with the Father," in the Nicene Creed, he writes: of course,
this had the defect of having been originally a gnostic phrase, and one
which had no precedence in the Bible." (p. 127).
What logic is it that would bind on all Christendom a pagan gnostic
phrase, repeated continually in a creed; and yet at the same time
ridicule the verbal invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, calling it
"pagan magic?" Why would anyone want to put himself in the same class
as that bitter Christ-hating Sanhedrin which ordered Peter "not to speak
at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus" (See Acts 4:18)? That's
the real intent of all this nonsensical twaddle about "magic" And "incantation"
and "manipulation." It's the same Spirit that fuels their "no baptismal
formula" heresy. It is an outright and disgusting attempt to
silence the Name of Jesus from being verbally uttered. The devils
of Hell couldn't be more pleased! And there can be no doubt as to
who the real author of this theory is! Our response is the same as
Peter's and John's, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken
unto you more than God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the
things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20).
We too have a creed, but it doesn't come from the gnostics, it comes from
the Paul: "and whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name
of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Col. 3:17).
DR. KITTEL'S FINAL WORD
In G. Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,"
p. 255, he writes concerning the expression "calling on the Name":
"The Hebrews expression 'calling on the name of the Lord' originally
signified 'To invoke the deity with the Name Yahweh' and still bears traces
of a magical constraint which can be exercised by utterance of the Name...
In the Old Testament, of course, the invocation bears the weaker sense
of 'calling on Yahweh' i.e., worshipping him... and the magical notion
disappears. Indeed, misusing the Name of God in magic and incantation
is expressly forbidden in the decalogue... Yahweh refuses to be conjured
up by the utterance of his name. He promises his coming at the appointed
shrines when he is called upon there... Thus the Name of Yahweh is not
an instrument of magic; it is a gift of revelation. This does
not rule out the fact that uttering or calling on Yahweh's name implies
faith in his Power..."
The Oneness position exactly!
JESUS SAID: "I AM COME IN MY FATHER'S NAME AND YE RECEIVE
ME NOT..." (JOHN 5:43). THIS IS PROOF THAT CHRIST BEARS HIS
FATHER'S NAME, A NAME WHICH HE INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER (HEB. 1:4).
WHEN WE INVOKE HIS NAME WE ARE NOT USING MAGIC, BUT FAITH!
|
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED IN THE TITLES FATHER, SON
AND HOLY GHOST. THEY RECEIVED CERTIFICATES SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.
IS THERE ONE EXAMPLE OF ANYONE IN THE BIBLE BEING BAPTIZED IN THE TITLES?
|
TOYING WITH GREEK
In a desperate attempt to stifle discussion on Baptism in Jesus Name, certain
Trinitarians of late have taken to using the Greek in their argument.
Though their error has been corrected repeatedly in the past, they will
not cease employing it. These "lower lights" keep burning, but they
send no gleam of truth "across the waves."
Their basic contention is that the Greek expression rendered "in the
name" in Matt 28:19, is different from the Greek expression in Acts 2:38,
which is also translated into English as "in the name." Thus they
contend that Matt 28:19 actually says to be baptized "into" the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whereas Peter's command is merely to be
baptized "in" the name of Jesus. Peter's words are thus interpreted
to only mean "by the authority of Jesus," while Christ's words are
said to be the actual formula.
Of course, any reputable Greek scholar would inform them that there
is no difference between the two expressions, they are equivalent to each
other. But if these so-called "Masters of Greek" had done their homework,
they would have found that Paul commanded the Ephesian disciples to be
baptized "into" the name of the Lord Jesus in Acts 16:6. The exact
same Greek expression is used here as in Matt 28:19, "into the name."
This collapses their quibble entirely, and they should apologize to their
reading public. They are without excuse, because John Paterson pointed
this out to them in his book, The Real Truth about Baptism in Jesus Name,
away back in 1950. Did they think enough time had elapsed and it
was safe to turn this thrice resuscitated argument loose on their unsuspecting
readers yet again? One can only hope that the lid is finally nailed
shut on this nonsense.
WHEN THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF THE BIBLE IS PROPERLY ANALYZED , IT
PROVES BAPTISM "INTO THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST" WAS THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY
FORMULA.
|
PERSONAL INCIDENTS
I realize that subjective personal, experiences, no matter how spectacular,
cannot replace the Word of God as a doctrinal guide. However, such
experiences, when supported by clear Biblical precedent, should be taken
into consideration as corroborating evidence. Having established
the scriptural veracity of Baptism in Jesus' Name, I would now like to
recount two remarkable incidents which occurred in my ministry relative
to the doctrine in question.
DIVINE GUIDANCE FOR JEANNE FOWLER
In the summer of 1976, I was teaching my Sunday School Class when a very
frail woman entered the church and staggered down the aisle. She
seated herself near the front of the church and waited patiently for the
lesson to end. Finally she raised her hand, apologizing for taking
up my time, and requested to say something. The woman seemed to be
in earnest about something, so I consented. She informed me that
she had cancer and could only live a few more weeks. She was greatly
concerned about her soul and had been repenting and asked God to forgive
her. She had read where you needed to be baptized to be saved in
Mark 16:16 and so had packed a change of clothes, and with great physical
effort, had driven to a nearby church. She mentioned the name of
the Church and I recognized it as a local Trinitarian assembly. She
continued with her story and told how she had entered the church and asked
the pastor to baptize her. He agreed to do this after the service,
and instructed her to be seated and join them in worship. Then something
remarkable happened. While seated in that Trinitarian church she
heard the Lord speak to her very clearly and distinctly. He said
to get up and leave the service at once, because they could not baptize
her correctly there, and she must go somewhere else. Startled, but
obedient, she quietly slipped out. She drove her car, not knowing
where to go next. When she came near by church the same voice of
the Lord told her to stop and go in and request baptism, for here she would
be baptized in the proper way.
As we sat and listened to her most unusual story, a holy awe settled
over the congregation. I myself was astonished at such an amazing
recitation. But more was to come. With genuine sincerity in
her eyes she looked at me and asked: "Pastor, what is the difference between
your baptism and that other church's? God would not let me be baptized
there and I want to know why?"
I explained that even though we both immersed candidates in water, our
church did it in Jesus Name, which is the Name of the Father, and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost. The other church merely repeated
the titles without mentioning the name. She readily saw this truth
and then realized why God had led her to our church. "IN all places
where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee" (Exodus
20:24).
I baptized her in Jesus Name for the remission of sins. Shortly
after that she passed on to her reward. I am confident that at this
very moment as I write her testimony and her face comes up before me in
memory, she is in heaven worshipping the One-Personed God, our Lord Jesus
Christ, whose Name she took on in baptism.
JOEY BRAY'S REMARKABLE
DELIVERANCE
A second incident occurred while I was attending a Pentecostal convention
in Houston. I met a young man who needed a job. I knew of an
employment opportunity in Galveston and agreed to drive him there.
I thought it would be a good opportunity to witness to him. On the
way he began to speak in a very disjointed and incoherent fashion.
He claimed to be able to understand the speech of animals and to get "revelations"
from them. He asked me if that was of God. I told him he had
a demon. He tried to flee the car but we were on a high bridge by
this time and I refused to stop.
When we got to Galveston, about midnight, I stopped the car alongside
their famous sea wall. We both got out. I told him he was demon
possessed and needed to be delivered. He agreed and fell down at
my feet sobbing and holding me fast by the ankles so I could not leave.
I began rebuking the spirit that was in him. The few remaining tourists
that straggled past us that night gave us a wide berth! I'm sure
it presented quite a sight.
The spirit came out of him and a great calm swept over him. I
knew there had been a change. Next I led him in a prayer of
repentance as he turned his life over to Christ.
His next remark caught me by surprise. He said: "Shouldn't I be
baptized?" I responded affirmatively, but told him I did not have
a church in this city and therefore had no access to a baptistery.
he pointed to the vast Gulf of Mexico that stretched before us on all sides,
and like the Ethiopian of old, he asked why this would not be sufficient.
(Acts 8:36). Somewhat embarrasses for not having realized what a
mighty "baptistery" God had provided us, I told him it was indeed sufficient.
There was no one on the beach at this late hour and the tide was coming
in. In the moonlight I caught a glimpse of his shirt. It had
a satanic symbol on it! I told him I could not baptize him with such
an evil sign on him. He agreed and took the shirt off and threw it
on the sand. We proceeded into the water and I immersed him in the
saving name of Jesus. As he came out of the water he began speaking
in tongues! What a wonderful time we had! When we returned
to the shore, the shirt was not at the spot we had left it. It had
completely disappeared. IN its place lay a clean new white towel
neatly folded, soft and dry. Just as if an angel had brought it down
for him. He used it to dry off with, and both of us were convinced
this was a miraculous sign from God: "Therefore if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away, behold, all things
are become new" (1 Corinthians 5:17). And this apparently includes
Tee-shirts (at least in this case anyhow).
We separated, but several months later I received a letter from
him:
Dear Brother Ross,
I am in Chicago now. I have no place to live and I walk the
streets looking for work. But I know God is with me. The wind
here blows very cold sometimes, but I don't mind. I just pray to
God and talk to him in unknown tongues, just like I did in the Gulf that
night, then I feel so much better. I know he is with me.
Your brother,
Joey
Later the same young man came to Florida and confirmed his testimony
before my entire congregation.
Multiplied thousands of people around the world could add their testimonies
to these two, as top how God led them into this remarkable truth of the
one true name of God, revealed in water baptism. Soon the whole world
will believe nothing else! "And it shall come to pass in that day,
saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out
of the land, and they shall no more be remembered; and also I will cause
the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass t pass out of the land.
And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there
shall be one Lord, and his name One." (Zech. 13:2; 14:9).
THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE CONTRIBUTED THEIR PERSONAL
TESTIMONIES OF HOW THE LORD REVEALED TO THEM THE TRUE BIBLE BAPTISM IN
JESUS NAME. THESE TESTIMONIES ARE PRESERVED IN THE HEADQUARTERS AND
VARIOUS CHURCHES OF THE ONENESS MOVEMENT.
|