Oneness pentecostals Jesus only

[Smack_Daddy]

My parents, after being Baptist most of their lives, are now “Jesus Only” Pentecostals. They were re-baptised in the name of Jesus only after joing their new church. After I converted to the true Church, I tried to convince them of the errors of their faith using the scriptures mentioned in some of the other posts, but…

At least their baptism as a Baptist was valid. Hopefully their sincerity in their faith and their love for Jesus will be enough on their Judgement day.

 

[CatholicBerean]

hardane:

I have a question regarding baptism. According to at least some history sources(http://ebiblestudies.com/BibleStudi...ripture_and_History.htm#The Historical Record) the church originally baptized in the name of Jesus only, and was latter changed to the Trinitarian formula. Are these accounts of history wrong, or is the mode of baptism not an infallible doctrine?

They are based on a faulty asssumed premise. The premise is that, “All five such accounts occur in the Book of Acts, the history book of the early church. It records that the following people were baptized in Jesus’ name.” This cannot be stated with as much certainty as they would like. If you will notice the five different places where the words , “in the name of Jesus occurs” they are not in the context of an actual baptismal service where we are hearing what is actually being said over a person as they are being baptized. All we see is the command to be baptized “in the name of Jesus”. Sometimes though it is not even with those words. One time it is, “in the name of the Lord”. The word Jesus is not even mentioned. Yet, for the Oneness formula it is necessary for the invocation of the actual name to be valid.

Since the phrases, in the name of Jesus, in the name of Jesus Christ, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the name of the Lord, can be seen as describing a “type” of baptism or a persons “faith” instead of what was literally spoken over someone. There is no absolute necessity to state that in the scripture this was the formula that was used. Some say that when they said, “in the name of Jesus” it was to contrast the baptism of John not a direct formula. The only way to solve this is to read an actual baptism service where the words are recorded as the service occurs. We don’t have any record that shows this.

One last note. In Acts 19. Some disciples came to Paul and he said to them, “…Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

Some point to the notion that Paul asked this question because of the Triune formula that was used in baptism. That is when they would have heard of the Holy Ghost for sure.

hardane:
Also, I was reading the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Acts of the Apostles, and came across these footnotes, which went well with the question I had regarding baptism:

“10:43 through his name: Forgiveness comes through the invocation of Christ’s name in Baptism (2:38; 10:38; 22:16).” pg 35.

“22:16 be baptized: Baptism signifies on the body what it accomplishes in the soul - the washing away of human sin. The visible water is coupled with the audible word of the minister, who calls upon the saving name of Christ (2:38; Eph. 5:26).” pg 55.

If the above is true, why is the name of Christ no longer invoked or called on in baptism? If baptism in the name of Jesus was practiced early on, why was it changed? And, if it was valid early on (I’ve read somewhere that Pope Stephen said it was) then why is it not valid now?

Thank you in advance for your help.
Now, assuming that the words “in the name of Jesus” was a formula. St Thomas Aquinas says that it was for a special dispensation.

When we read the Church Fathers we find that it was not the normative formula at all. When issues regarding the form of baptism arose the Father referred to tradition when they defended the Trinitarian formula. The earlies records that we have concerning the practice of baptism in volve the Triune formula. This would indicate that if the formula “in the name of Jesus” was used it could have been for a specific time a purpose only and not indicative of “the norm”.

Although I think that it is more likely that it was not used as a formula at all since the words in Acts are different in every of the five places except for two. If it was a formula they would not be different.

 

[CatholicBerean]

Smack Daddy:

My parents, after being Baptist most of their lives, are now “Jesus Only” Pentecostals. They were re-baptised in the name of Jesus only after joing their new church. After I converted to the true Church, I tried to convince them of the errors of their faith using the scriptures mentioned in some of the other posts, but…

At least their baptism as a Baptist was valid. Hopefully their sincerity in their faith and their love for Jesus will be enough on their Judgement day.

I will keep them in my prayers. My wife is a Oneness Apostolic and she believes that I have “backslid” and need to “come back to the truth”.

 

[jordan]

hardane:

I have a question regarding baptism. According to at least some history sources(http://ebiblestudies.com/BibleStudi...ripture_and_History.htm#The Historical Record) the church originally baptized in the name of Jesus only, and was latter changed to the Trinitarian formula. Are these accounts of history wrong, or is the mode of baptism not an infallible doctrine? Also, I was reading the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Acts of the Apostles, and came across these footnotes, which went well with the question I had regarding baptism:

“10:43 through his name: Forgiveness comes through the invocation of Christ’s name in Baptism (2:38; 10:38; 22:16).” pg 35.

“22:16 be baptized: Baptism signifies on the body what it accomplishes in the soul - the washing away of human sin. The visible water is coupled with the audible word of the minister, who calls upon the saving name of Christ (2:38; Eph. 5:26).” pg 55.

If the above is true, why is the name of Christ no longer invoked or called on in baptism? If baptism in the name of Jesus was practiced early on, why was it changed? And, if it was valid early on (I’ve read somewhere that Pope Stephen said it was) then why is it not valid now?

Thank you in advance for your help.

The trinitarian formula does invoke the name of the Son, who is the Christ. We know what scripture says - as has been mentioned earlier in this string the scripture does not give a “formula” for baptism. To say someone was baptised in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Lord, does not mean the trinitarian formula was not used. Indeed, our Lord commanded the disciples to use it. The link you provided with “historical” evidence begins:

Respected historical sources verify that the early Christian church did not use a threefold baptismal formula but invoked the name of Jesus in baptism well into the second and third centuries.

I’m not sure who these “respected” historical resources are. Here are some historical resources which dispute the above statement.

TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES (Didache, ca. 140 AD)

“In regard to baptism - baptize thus: After the foregoing instuctions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptise in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm.”

JUSTIN MARTYR, FIRST APOLOGY (inter 148-155)

“Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with the water.”

So early on, where the formula is spelled out explicitly, the trinitarian formula commanded by Our Lord (Mt 28: 19) is used.

 

[Matt16_18]

Re: baptism “in the name of Jesus” in the Book of Acts, and the Oneness Pentecostal interpretation of these verses

Have you ever watched a movie where a police officer shouts at a fleeing suspect, “Stop, in the name of the law”? The police officer is saying that he has authority “in the name of the law” to issue a command that the fleeing suspect must obey. The same thing is occurring in the book of Acts. Baptism is being given to men and women, and the phrase, “in the name of Jesus”, or “in the name of the Lord”, means that the Apostles had the authority to give this new baptism. The Apostles are acting “in the name of Jesus”, just as the police officer is acting “in the name of the law”.

Peter heals a lame man near the entrance to the temple with the words, “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk”. (Acts 3:6). This healing leads to many Jews becoming believers in Jesus. Peter is hauled before Annas the high priest and Caiaphas who are annoyed by this healing and Peter’s subsequent preaching at the Temple. Annas and Caiaphas demand of Peter, "By what power or by what name did you do this?” (Acts 4:7).

There are many other scriptures that use the formula of invoking authority by acting in someone’s name. For example, these verses by Jesus:

I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.
John 5:43

On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
Matt. 7:22

It is always interesting to see the Oneness Pentecostals try to dance around this verse:

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
John 14:26

 

[twf]

Excellent post Matt.16_18! Yes, ‘in the name of Jesus’ can refer to something being done under and by the authority of Jesus. I am sure that the apostles baptized with ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ as the formula.

 

[hardane]

jordan:

The link you provided with “historical” evidence begins:

I’m not sure who these “respected” historical resources are. Here are some historical resources which dispute the above statement.

One of them is Encyclopedia Britannica:

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: “The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Baptism into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.”

I’m familiar with the Didache, and Justin Martyr, and the fact that the Church Fathers are pretty much unanimous on this. But that makes it all the more perplexing. With 2000 years of witness, how can they get it so wrong (Encyclopedia Britannica) or was it just not that unanimous. Or was it just for “for a special dispensation” as posted earlier.

Thanks again for your help,
Greg

 

[peterforjc]

When you have a Church that guides like we do it is easy to find the Holy Trinity in scripture. However, if you don’t have that knowledge and have a strong preacher teaching oneness theology I believe you can get misled into believing in this. Scripture itself says Jesus and the Father are one. In fact there are almost as many verses claiming oneness as there are three persons. ( Even more confusing is saying yes Jesus, God and the Spirit are one but not they way they claim) Obviously Catholics can look to the Church to tell us what the Holy Spirit is revealing but when you do not believe in the Catholic Church and believe it apostisized in 325 when they defined the Trinity one can get turned around. It has happened to many and that is why this is a fast growing movement 18 million strong. I asked Tim Staples to please do a series on this and he said he would but that was almost 9 months ago I know those guys are busy but we need to keep on them because our Catholic apologists can make a difference if they put in the time and get it on tape.

 

[charles223]

I have had experience with an aggressive oneness pentacostalist. I found the most effective argument with him was to disprove the oneness pentacostal belief about the Son.

According to oneness pentacostaIism, Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In their theology, the Son is the humanity of Jesus and is neither divine nor pre-existed the Incarnation. If the Son is divine or pre-existed the Incarnation, then the Father and the Son must be either two separate divine persons or two separate Gods, both of which contradict oneness theology. If you prove the divinity, pre-existence, and eternity of the Son, then you disprove modalism.

Numerous passages in the New Testament prove the divinity, pre-existence, and eternity of the Son. I don’t have those verses in front of me currently, but I will post them tomorrow. Two of the best are the first chapter of John’s Gospel and Hebrews 1:8-9, where the Son is referred to as God.

 

[Colossus]

I’ve also had this discussion with one of my best friends who joined a church called The Apostolic Faith Center. He’s been there for almost a year and on several occasions he has talked to me about being baptized in the name of Jesus. From his understanding in Mathew 28:19 Jesus was once again speaking in a parable. The name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus, according to his beliefs.

He backs up his belief by using the verse in the Bible where it states to do all things in Jesus name and all things includes baptism. He also said that when people were casting out demons and healing they did so in the name of Jesus, you don’t read in the bible where a demon was cast out by saying “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I command you to leave this person”.

I don’t talk to him that much because this program that he is in doesn’t allow him to use the internet or talk on the phone very often He is free to leave the program whenever he chooses, but it’s sort of like a school so if he did leave he would lose his place in the program and have to start over. I’ve been very leery of this place where he is at because it seems too controlling. They even find husbands and wives for those people who are in the program and they must live on site and are not allowed to live off the church grounds. Once they are married they can have a job, but they along with their family must continue to live at the church compound (for lack of a better word).

I don’t know much about this place and finding information on it has been sort of difficult. My other best friends who is a Non-Denominational Christian has also tried talking to him about this place, but without much success. In the mean time I continue to pray for him and hope that one day he will find his way home.

 

[Bat-Ami]

In African-American communities, the Oneness movement is quite strong. I used to work with a woman who belonged to this and those who believed in the 3-in-1 were very upset with her. I was surprised to see how widespread it was in the African-American community where I live. But that “surprise” took place many years ago when I was still a Christian.

I am no longer a Catholic Christian. I am Jewish now so what is taking place in Christian communities is not a big point with me anymore but it is still a part of the Christian African-American community.

Bat-Ami

 

[hardane]

I need some help with church history, especially pertaining to baptism. I have been a Oneness Pentecostal for about 27 years. I’ve studied, debated, and taught, and have never really had a hard time defending Oneness doctrine. However, about nine years ago I got “the question”. Where does the Bible teach that the Bible alone is all you need for doctrine. I’ve spent the last nine years going back and forth reading pro- and anti - Catholic books looking for the answer. And, the answers to many other questions that arose as well. After all this time, I did the only honest thing I could do. I started going to RCIA classes. Only my wife knows for now, and she’s none too happy. Anything Catholic “gives her the creeps.” When the people at church find out…it will most likely lead to being dis-fellowshiped. Another one seduced by the whore of Babylon…the mother of harlots. I’ll be doomed to hell. But anyway…that’s OK if the Catholic Church is the true Church. What really turned me to the Catholic Church was the authority issue, which, as I mentioned earlier, includes the Sola Scriptura problem. Since I know most (if not all) of the arguments they will use, I’m having trouble with a couple of things. For years I have successfully argued that the early church baptized in Jesus name, not the Triune formula. Since they know I know this, the question is: Since the formula for baptism is infallible teaching, how is it that only the Triune formula is valid now, when the Jesus only formula was valid in the beginning? I hope this is clear. Maybe this way: If the Churches teaching is infallible, how could one formula be valid at the beginning and not now? For those that are interested, there is a link below to a chapter of one of the books that teaches Oneness doctrine on baptism. This is the kind of material that I grew up reading and learning, and this is the type of books, including this very book, that they are reading and arguing out of. This is all I’ve known for most of my life, and I’m having a very hard time with answers to their questions. Because the Church says so won’t work, even though, at this time, it’s the only reason I have. Sorry if I went long here, but this has been a *major *struggle for me, and will only get worse. RCIA starts in full in September. I won’t be able to hide my Catholic leaning after that as it will entail missing church every Sunday morning (instead of just once a month). Even if I had all the answers, I wouldn’t be looking forward to this. Well, I’m looking forward to hearing back from someone. I don’t know any Catholics, so I don’t have anyone to talk to except you all, and I can rarely sit down and write like this. Anyway…Thanks in advance for your help.

99% Catholic,
Greg

THE WITNESS IN CHURCH HISTORY: BAPTISM

 

[Matt16_18]

hardane:

For years I have successfully argued that the early church baptized in Jesus name, not the Triune formula. Since they know I know this, the question is: Since the formula for baptism is infallible teaching, how is it that only the Triune formula is valid now, when the Jesus only formula was valid in the beginning?

The doctrine of the Trinity is the infallible teaching, not the discipline followed in the Baptismal Ritual.

When the NT scriptures speak about baptizing in Jesus’ name they are not talking about a “formula” that was used during baptism, that are speaking about the authority that they are invoking for permission to baptize.

The Sacrament of Baptism is an immersion into the death of Jesus and the resurrected life of Jesus. The new life that we are born into through the death and resurrection of Jesus is the divine life of the Trinity. When we become partakers of the divine nature through baptism, we become partakers in the divine life of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I’m familiar with the Didache, and Justin Martyr, and the fact that the Church Fathers are pretty much unanimous on this. But that makes it all the more perplexing. With 2000 years of witness, how can they get it so wrong (Encyclopedia Britannica) or was it just not that unanimous. Or was it just for “for a special dispensation” as posted earlier.

The unanimity that you see with the Fathers of the Church is their unanimous belief in the Trinity. Even if there were instances of early Christians not being baptized with the exact words that we now use in the Baptismal Ritual, that does NOT mean that these early Christian denied a belief in the Trinity. When heretics such as Sabellius began to deny the Trinity, the bishops of the church had to tighten the discipline of the church to make it clear that belief in the Trinity is the unchangeable dogma of the true believers in Christ.

The reason Oneness Pentecostal baptism is invalid is because the Oneness Pentecostals deny the central doctrine of Christianity, namely the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[hardane]

Matt16_18:

The reason Oneness Pentecostal baptism is invalid is because the Oneness Pentecostals deny the central doctrine of Christianity, namely the doctrine of the Trinity.

So, it wasn’t the formula that was used that was important, only the belief that went with the formula? Does that mean that the formula itself is not infallible? I have some friends that go to a church that believes in the Trinity, but baptizes in Jesus name alone. They say it is the Scriptural way and that it in no way hurts the doctrine of the Trinity. Is their baptism valid since they believe in the Trinity? I’ve never heard this explanation before and am trying to understand. Whatever explanation I give is going to be picked apart, if not dismissed out of hand. But I need to feel good about it anyway. Thanks for the help.

Greg

 

[Matt16_18]

hardane:

I have some friends that go to a church that believes in the Trinity, but baptizes in Jesus name alone. They say it is the Scriptural way and that it in no way hurts the doctrine of the Trinity. Is their baptism valid since they believe in the Trinity?

That is a good question, and I suppose only a bishop can give an authoritative answer. If these people really believed in the Trinity, I personally think that a bishop would recognize such a baptism as valid, because while the wording used during the baptism was sloppy, the intent behind the words was correct.

So, it wasn’t the formula that was used that was important, only the belief that went with the formula

The truth is always more important than the words that are used to express a belief in that truth.

Let us imagine that a new Mormon sect decided to us a baptismal formula that was exactly the same as the Catholic formula. These fictional Mormons are changing the words that they use during baptism, but the Mormons are not giving up their peculiar beliefs in many gods. They are only changing the words of their baptismal formula so that it now reads just like the words used by other mainline Christian denominations. They are doing this so that converts to this new sect are made to feel comfortable as they are sucked into the lies of the Mormon sect.

Would the Mormon sect’s baptism be valid because they used the exact same words as Catholics while at the same time they were confessing a belief in many gods? No, a baptism would not be a valid where the words are correct, but the intent behind the words is a denial of the Trinity .

When heresy arises, the Catholic Church will sometimes solemnly define a dogma to express in words what Christians must believe. But that need to solemnly define doctrine oftentimes arises only when heretics begin teaching things that were never part of the deposit of faith. The solemnly defined dogmas about the Trinity are words that are pointing to an objective reality. It is not so much that the words about the Trinity are true, but more that the reality the words point to is the truth. And that reality is God, who is the truth, and who is Triune.

It is possible to use different words express the same truth. For example, during the liturgy of the Mass, some Catholic Rites say the filioque clause in the Creed and some do not. It doesn’t matter if some Catholic Rites do not say the filioque clause, because those Rites are not denying the formally defined dogma of the Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox Churches that are in schism with the Catholic Church do not say the filioque clause, and that can be problematic. Not because omitting the filioque clause is wrong, per se, but because some Orthodox Churches omit the filioque clause because they want to make a point that they are denying the solemnly defined dogma of the Council of Florence concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

 

[hardane]

According to oneness pentacostaIism, Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In their theology, the Son is the humanity of Jesus and is neither divine nor pre-existed the Incarnation.

Not exactly. They believe Jesus is God, the Father, in flesh. The flesh = the Son, and the Spirit = the Father. Therefore, when Jesus prays to the Father, it is the flesh praying to the Spirit.

This chapter explains the Oneness view of the Son.

 

[hardane]

In fact there are almost as many verses claiming oneness as there are three persons. ( Even more confusing is saying yes Jesus, God and the Spirit are one but not they way they claim) Obviously Catholics can look to the Church to tell us what the Holy Spirit is revealing but when you do not believe in the Catholic Church and believe it apostisized in 325 when they defined the Trinity one can get turned around.

This is so true. Early Church Fathers, and Councils, mean nothing to OP’s, unless, they think they find support for their beliefs in them.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Orthodox Churches that are in schism with the Catholic Church do not say the filioque clause, and that can be problematic. Not because omitting the filioque clause is wrong, per se, but because some Orthodox Churches omit the filioque clause because they want to make a point that they are denying the solemnly defined dogma of the Council of Florence concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Not quite. At the time of the Schism, the East didn’t have the filioque, or the heresy surrounding Christology that gave rise to its insertion in the Western Creed. The Eastern Orthodox reject the filioque as do the Eastern Rite Catholics. We have come to an agreement on the filioque with some Orthodox Churches, that the meaning behind the filioque is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

This is, however off-topic for this thread so ignore my reply.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

This is so true. Early Church Fathers, and Councils, mean nothing to OP’s, unless, they think they find support for their beliefs in them.

Isn’t that the same for most Christian churches?

As a Catholic however I look at and read the Fathers who are even heretics (such as Origen) to learn about their ideas and why they became heretical etc.

 

[hardane]

30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.*

Now if tongues is required for salvation, how does your friend explain St Paul’s comment in verse 30, “All do not speak with tongues” or the whole gist of the chapter that there are many gifts and not everyone will recieve all of them…

Because, according to Oneness theology, speaking in tongues when one receives the Holy Spirit is different than the gift of tongues, as implied here: "Speaking in tongues will occur automatically when he receives the Spirit even if he knows little or nothing about the evidence of tongues.

Someone who has received the Spirit can and should seek the gift of tongues as a regular part of his life, but he should also recognize that not everyone will exercise the public gift (I Corinthians 12:28-30)." from The New Birth by David Bernard (Full text here)