Does Church History Support Baptism in Jesus' Name?

The absolute uh record, the record is absolutely strong on the baptism of the name of Jesus Christ. So let me summarize and again I've covered this in several of my books but my book the new birth has a summary uh then I have books on Christian doctrine history of Christian doctrine the first volume would cover the early centuries and then my doctoral thesis glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ kind of summarize the evidence in a few pages so it's available in several formats but let me uh let me outline the evidence. So in the first century obviously we do have the book of acts which is clear baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and then you have you have five accounts uh and then you have at least six um illusions in the epistles that refer back to Jesus name baptism you have the one case of Matthew 28:19 which we discuss separately but my contention would be and a lot of scholars agree that it was never intended to be a formula that the early formula was Jesus name baptism that Matthew 28:19 is a description of that formula.

So once you get beyond the New Testament, it's interesting. Of course, the scholars will start with the New Testament, but there is a consensus. This is not controversial, but if you look at New Testament scholars and if you look at church historians, there's a consensus that the original formula was in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord Jesus. There's actually a book by Lars Hartman uh into the name of the Lord Jesus. The whole book and he doesn't come from a oneness perspective. He's probably not even aware of the oneness movement, but from a scholarly perspective, he outlines the evidence in a fairly comprehensive way, but I've looked at the evidence myself from the early writings.

And so, let's let's go after the New Testament. So, in the second century, then yes, you find references still to Jesus name baptism. There is a writing by an unknown otherwise unknown author in Rome named Hermas but it was a very well-known book in ancient times that talks about being baptized in the name of the son of god. Uh there are popular writings anonymous and pseudonmous writings of this early time that reflect popular Christian thinking and a number of them use the name of Jesus Christ. There's even the acts of Paul and Thela which as Thela is a woman. Uh it obviously this is not biblical but it's just like an apocryphal writing or a you know a novel using Paul as a character but um it specifically says that she was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

So you have a number of references like that in the popular writings. Um, and then you have some illusions to the power of the name of Jesus or the effectiveness of the name of Jesus, which doesn't specifically say baptism, but it all seems to fit. The earliest possible reference to father, son, and holy spirit is the ditici or teaching of the twelve apostles, which we have an episode on that, which maybe dates to 120, but it also has a statement of baptism in the name of the Lord. So you could look at this as two contrasting statements. I actually favor the view of the the encyclopedia of religion and ethics to say that reference to father, son, and holy spirit is probably later edition.

Uh the original statement probably should stand baptism in the name of the lord. Um and so you for that reason most scholars don't even consider that as an early evidence of uh father son and holy ghost formula. Uh it doesn't seem to have been original there. There's only one copy of the manuscript is dated 1056. So there's every likelihood that in the thousand years or 900 years of copying uh somebody decided to add that or insert that but they didn't realize that another place that it would go against what they were thinking. But so setting aside that very questionable and fragmentaryary statement, the very first three-fold reference we find in Justin Martyr around AD 150, which is interesting because he did not believe Jesus was the supreme God.

He believed Jesus was a subordinate second person. So it's natural that he would not really want to favor baptism strictly in the name of Jesus Christ. So if if that's your theology, what are you going to do? Where are you going to find an alternative? So he he probably saw Matthew 2019. So he had to have a three-fold formula. But what's interesting, his formula is not father, son, and holy spirit. It's the father and in the name of Jesus Christ, the son of god and the holy spirit. So my personal thought is Jesus name. And and he also has other statements about the power of the name of Jesus.

The name of Jesus is the name of God that's revealed to us. So I think he's working from an older tradition that the name of Jesus is the name of God that everybody baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. He doesn't want to just exclusively give glory to Jesus. But he's got to face the fact of all the custom and practice and tradition is Jesus name. So what does he do? He comes up with a three-fold formula but he puts the name of Jesus Christ in there to avoid criticism. And then later we find Erynaeus a late second century writer. He one of his statements talks about baptism with the invocation of the lord.

But then his latest writing he also quotes what u you saw in Justin in the name of the father and of Jesus Christ and of the holy spirit. So maybe by the end of the second century some people are starting to use expanded formula but they're still deferring to the older tradition. and they're still making sure the name of Jesus is is in the center. It's not until say after AD 200 210 somewhere around that that you find the first clear statement of baptism in the name of the father son and holy spirit and associated with three divine persons and that's in the writing of Tertullian that's the first unambiguous trinitarian baptismal formula even after that you find evidence of the Jesus name formula so late uh so in the 3rd century so this is would be after Tertullan even there's an interesting debate there is a bishop in in North Africa which is where Tertullian was also named Cyprien who he's starting to see you starting to see the later doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church where he's arguing that only people baptized in the church are saved if you're not baptized in a legitimate church we don't recognize your baptism and he mentions s um and then there there was a bishop of Rome which later Catholics call the pope Pope Steven well he was arguing to the contrary well if they're baptized in the name of Jesus Christ we will accept their baptism and then there's an anonymous treaty on rebaptism uh which apparently was an opponent of cyprien so we don't know who it was but apparently was another bishop but he was cautious about using his name and and he the whole treatise is there are many people that are outside the recognized church that we consider heretics or we consider schismatics because they're a broken fellowship for various reasons.

However, they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. So, if they come into the true church and accept us, we don't have to rebaptize them because they're already baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. So, this is long discussion that as long as it's baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, it's okay. So both people who are in the recognized institutional church and people are outside were being baptizing in Jesus' name. So you find abundance abundant evidence uh in the second and third centuries for a continuation of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. My personal feeling or conclusion I should say is in the early part of that period that was predominant.

in the middle part of the period when it started changing. They still made sure to keep the name of Jesus and it was only at the end of that period. So now you're talking probably 300 where you start seeing people just using father, son, and holy spirit. Now I will just add throughout history as people go back and read the Bible you will find different examples of people going back and baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. even much later uh I forget the the counselor Frias which I think was in the 800s they they had to deal with this issue what what about people who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ instead of father son and holy spirit should we recognize them or not because the official doctrine you're supposed to pronounce father son and holy spirit and that council said we should still recognize them because when you invoke the name of Jesus you're invoking the whole trinity so although they were uh now operating in a clearly trinitarian context, you still find people arguing that baptism in Jesus' name is okay.

Why would they be arguing that unless some people are doing that? Um and and so it's interesting that even later in history, you do find people baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. And then at the reformation when the early Anabaptists they started going back to the Bible you start seeing uh some of the Anabaptist some of the Baptists in England and others reviving the practice of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. This of course is long before the Pentecostal movement began. So there is the early history I would say 2 century that was still the predominant formula and then throughout history you find other examples of the Jesus name formula.

it's in not only us but other prominent theologians said you know when you go back to the early evidence that was the original method used even though they didn't go to the next step saying let's all do it ourselves they admitted the the biblical and uh later the historical evidence.