Historical references to Baptism in Jesus name vs. The Holy Trinity

[HoneyBea]

A friend who attends United Pentecostal church sent this to me. Why? I have no idea. I thought it was strange and I’m not sure what he is even implying. The subject line read “Historical references to Baptism in Jesus name vs. The Holy Trinity”.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The UPC (UPCI) denies the Trinity, believes in Modalism, denying the distinction of
the Father Son & Holy Spirit. The Baptismal Formula of the United Pentecostals is
Jesus alone, based on one little passage in Scripture, ignoring everything else.

This friend is trying to trick you.

This Modalist is cherry picking history, removing facts from their
appropriate context, giving you part of the Truth, but not all of it.

Baptism “in the Name of Jesus,” according to Dr. Walter Martin, actually means “by the
**Authority **of Jesus,” as he mentioned on the *John Ankerberg Show *in which he was de-
bating two representatives of the UPC (both of whom failed miserably).

 

[fbl9]

tried to find page 263 in volume 2 and what I found had nothing to do with baptism.
but I did find the site where your friend got their material from. And other sites making the same volume2 page 263 claim.

 

[sousley]

What I have observed from these modalist groups is an insistence of a textual interpretation of Acts 2:38. The idea is that the text dictates “In the Name of Jesus” to be proper form and since it is in the historical book of Acts, it empirically reflects the infant Church. So now, there has to be some way to show Jesus’ mandate in Mt 28:19 to be without form; therefore the insistence that the Three Persons share one name (or title, office, or whatever they’re calling it now) becomes their answer.

This, once again, reflects those that read the Scriptures apart from any reality. If they recognized that this infant Church was real and actually existed on earth (as opposed to existing the pages of a book and as such, now needs to be created) they would understand that Peter was specifying this baptism of Jesus to be valid. There were other “baptisms” that were known of at the time, such as the one “of John”. There were other (heretical) groups performing “baptisms” as well as some sects of Judaism. Acts 2:38 does not demonstrate form, but instead, the truth of baptism and does not contradict (or reconstruct) Mt. 28:19.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think it may be relevant to post this also, which includes a Catholic Answers tract on Trinitarian baptism.

There were a variety of baptisms extant at that time, such as the baptisms of pagan cults like Mithraism, John the Baptist’s baptism, or Jewish proselyte baptism. So when the phrase “baptize in the name of Jesus” is used, it is simply a synecdoche for “Christian baptism.” In other words, these passages are not setting forth the formula but distinguishing “Christian” baptism from others.

When the command to baptize is given in Matt 28:19, they are told to do so “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This is also known in a shorter label as baptized “in the name of Jesus” in Acts.

See this Catholic Answers tract also.

 

[TRH1292]

Acts 19:1-7.

“1 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples.
2
He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.”
3
He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.”
4
Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6
And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.b
7
Altogether there were about twelve men.”

If you read that passage closely, you see that it disproves there position.

 

[Cathoholic]

Beware! They are leading up to the Sabellianist heresy (Sabellianism) or as Jude Thaddeus said, “modalism”.

Sabellius was a Priest around 200 A.D. who turned into a heretic manufacturing phony denials of the Holy Trinity.

This cuts to the core of who God is (and isn’t).

Catholic Encyclopedia The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons . . . .

Tim Staples is a Marine who is also a Catholic Apologist (“Once a Marine always a Marine” but I guess some people would call him an “ex-Marine”).

Tim Staples talks about the Sabellianist heresy (here) when he is discussing the Oneness Pentecostal Minister who was so confused regarding his Baptismal formula, that this minister incorporated three formulas to Baptize a person.

Sabellianism is sometimes called “Oneness Pentecostalism”. Before becoming Catholic, Tim Staples dealt with Sabellianists when he was going to Jimmy Swaggart Bible College (I think it is now called World Evangelism Bible College but I may be wrong on this).

Initially Staples didn’t know how to defend Christianity against the Modalist heretics. Staples talks about how he turned to reading the ancient Church Fathers to find out how to effectively refute this heresy.

Staples has several versions of his conversion Testimony to Catholicism. All are great. An inexpensive MP3 download can be found here.

A more detailed 3 CD set can be found here.

Staples is one of the funnest and most knowledgeable Catholic Apologists you will ever hear (I guess we could call him a “Funnest Catholic” as opposed to a “Oneness Pentecostal”).

I would suggest listening to the Youtube link right away (above or again here) and taking it from there. You could put this audio on in the background while checking your email, doing work around the home, etc. If you give Staples 5-10 minutes, he will draw you in with his speaking style (at least he does me).

It looks like he also has this talk posted here.

See also this Catholic Answers Tract.

Hope this helps.

 

[Cathoholic]

I was looking at my post where I said:

Sabellianism is sometimes called “Oneness Pentecostalism”.

Sorry. I thought my post was confusing when I re-read it today so I wanted to clarify:

“Oneness Pentecostalism” Includes A New Re-Manufactured Sabellianism

What I meant to say is “Oneness Pentecostalism” includes the new re-manufacturing of a very old heresy in the Church, Sabellianism. They are not the same religion per se.

“Oneness Pentecostalism” was invented in the early 1900’s about the time Woodrow Wilson was president (in other words, definitely no claim to being the “Apostolic” religion but rather yet another new religious invention of men).

I did not mean to imply they are one and the same religion but rather share the same foundational heresies.

The following comparison is more well-known . . .

“Jehovah’s Witnesses” Includes A New Re-Manufactured Arianism

Kind of like the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” share a foundational heresy too.

Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) includes the new re-manufacturing of a very old heresy in the Church, Arianism (the denial of Jesus as True God and True man).

I also do not mean to imply Jehovah’s Witnesses and Arianism are one and the same religion. They are not.

JW’s were a recent religious invention cooked-up by Charles Taze Russell and propagated by “Judge” Rutherford. JWs have many other brand-new religious innovations too (in addition to their Arian denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ–I won’t get into all their religious aberrations here).

Rather again, the early Church Arian heretics and the Jehovah’s Witnesses share foundational heresies. They are not the same religion per se.

I hope this clarifies adequately what I said in my last post.

 

[adrift]

tried to find page 263 in volume 2 and what I found had nothing to do with baptism.
but I did find the site where your friend got their material from. And other sites making the same volume2 page 263 claim.

The Catholic Encyclopedias entry on baptism states that the formula is the one that Jesus used and it is unlikely that the Apostles used in Jesus name since it was not what Jesus had said. They make these claims because they hope no one will check it out.