www.switbogowrp.fora.pl

cleoy8g5s

Baptism in the name of Jesus has evidently existed throughout church history and is now enjoying a great revival. The early church history is explored to include Catholics and others who originally baptized in the name of Jesus. The middle ages also had groups who testified to this mode of baptism. Lastly, the modern groups who once baptized in the name of Jesus (Assemblies of God, Quakers, and many others) and those who continue to keep this practice of the Apostles. "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. (Hebrews 12:1). Since all doctrine must be based on Scripture alone and not on man's traditions, creeds, or philosophies (Galatians 1:8-9; Colossians 2:8; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), we have based all conclusions in this book on the Bible. However, many people have never heard the doctrines we have presented, and some assume them to be modern inventions. Although history cannot alter or replace biblical truth, the study of these doctrines in church history is very enlightening.
Problems in Studying Church History
There are several difficulties that the student of church history, particularly ancient history, must consider:
(1) Doctrinal bias of church historians. Modern historians often interpret the statements of ancient writers from the perspective of their own beliefs, finding teachings that simply are not there. On the other hand, the doctrinal positions of historians can limit their understanding of doctrines that did exist.
(2) Doctrinal bias of ancient church writers. Consciously or unconsciously, ancient writers sometimes distorted or misrepresented the views of their doctrinal opponents. As a result, we do not always have an adequate presentation of certain ancient views, especially minority views. For example, what concept of Oneness would future generations have if their only source of information were articles written by trinitarians? Likewise, skeptical observers have often described worshipers in ways that made them appear ridiculous, absurd, ignorant, or mentally deranged. For example, what would someone think of Pentecostals if he read only the accounts of cynical opponents?
(3) Possibility of interpolations (additions to ancient manuscripts). Most of our information about church history comes from manuscripts that were copied hundreds of years after the original writings. In many cases the copyists changed or inserted certain lines to create support for particular doctrines. For example, a number of the epistles of the post-apostolic fathers exist in short and long versions. Obviously, one form (probably the longer one) is corrupt and reflects changes made by generations of editors and scribes. As another example, an ancient Christian writing called the Didache was apparently written in the 2nd century, but the only Greek manuscript we have of it dates from the 11th century. This means errors and deliberate changes could have accumulated over 900 years, and the document may reflect teachings from Roman Catholicism.
(4) Existing documents may not reflect the views of the average believer of that time period. In times when many people were not literate and books had to be handwritten, theological documents tended to be written and copied by the educated elite. Then, as now, theologians were frequently more liberal in their doctrines than were the majority of believers.
(5) History is written by the victors. Many who opposed officially accepted doctrines were persecuted so that they had little opportunity to leave an adequate written record of their beliefs. The documents they did write were usually destroyed and not recopied. For evidence of a minority doctrine to survive at all often means it must have been very prevalent in its day. Surviving records probably reveal only a fraction of those who actually held the belief.
(6) False doctrines existed from the earliest times. There is plenty of evidence in the biblical writings of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude that false doctrines abounded even in the days of the apostles and threatened to overwhelm the church. For this reason, the antiquity of a writer is no guarantee of his doctrinal purity.
Repentance and Water Baptism
The church leaders of the early post-apostolic era (A.D. 90-140) taught that baptism was for believers only and that repentance was necessary for baptism to be of any value. Lutheran Professor Otto Heick states, "Baptism, of course, was not meant to work magically. Without repentance and faith it would avail nothing." Lutheran Professor E. H. Klotsche says of the belief in this time: "In closest relation to baptism stands repentance. It is preparatory to baptism." However, when infant baptism began to gain acceptance, theologians began to teach that faith and repentance could follow baptism. This ultimately led to the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance. "When the original sequel of repentance and baptism became inverted by the practice of infant baptism, penance… acquired the status of a sacrament."
Water Baptism by Immersion
Church historians generally agree that the early post-apostolic church practiced immersion. Klotsche says, "The practice of immersion was undoubtedly universal in the early church." Kenneth Scott Latourette affirms this view: "Baptism seems to have been by immersion, at least normally." Some historians assert that other modes were practiced in these early times, but they agree that immersion was the predominant and preferred mode even when others began to develop.
Hermas (early 2nd century) described baptism by immersion and Irenaeus (died 202?) denounced baptism by pouring. Tertullian (died 220?) taught baptism by immersion and disapproved of infant baptism. Cyprian (died 258?) is the earliest apologist for sprinkling, but even he considered immersion to be the normal practice. He described baptism as a dipping but advised sprinkling for the sick. The Didache teaches baptism by immersion, but permits pouring if much water is not available. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (2nd or 3rd century), which contains a parallel passage to this portion of the Didache, teaches immersion but does not mention pouring.
The Eastern Orthodox still practice immersion even for infants, despite the fact that their counterparts in the West, the Roman Catholics, switched to sprinkling. Many Protestants continue in the Catholic tradition even though most early Protestant leaders recognized that immersion was the biblical method. Martin Luther expressed a preference for immersion based on the Greek word baptizo; John Calvin acknowledged immersion as the practice of the Early Church; and John Wesley interpreted Romans 6:3-5 to mean immersion.

Water Baptism as Part of Salvation
Early post-apostolic Christians affirmed baptism as part of salvation. Latourette remarked, "Baptism was believed to wash away all sins committed before it was administered. After baptism, the Christian was supposed not to sin." He also said, "Baptism seems to have been regarded as requisite for the remission of sins and for the new birth through which alone one could enter the Kingdom of God."
With respect to baptism in the first and second centuries the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, "The dominant ideas were those of forgiveness of [url=http://www.jeremyparendt.com/Barbour-Paris.php]barbour pas cher soldes[/url] sin, regeneration, and the gift of the Holy Spirit… The change effected by baptism was attributed to the name and to the water, which were regarded as actually effective and not merely symbolic." According to Heick, the post-apostolic fathers (A.D. 90-140) taught that "baptism confers the forgiveness of sins." For example, this was the teaching in the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. For the Greek Apologists (A.D. 130-180) baptism was "a washing of forgiveness and a regeneration." They said it "brings pardon and the new life, and is therefore necessary to salvation."
Other early theologians who taught that God remits sins at water baptism were Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian specifically described water baptism as the birth of the water in John 3:5, and Hippolytus and Cyprian identified water baptism as the laver of regeneration in Titus 3:5. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles paraphrases John 3:5 as, "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Tertullian taught that at water baptism the believer has his sins washed away, is born in water, and is prepared for the Holy Spirit. He believed that John's baptism pointed towards future remission of sins and that Christ's disciples continued John's baptism during Christ's earthly ministry. He described baptism as a seal of faith that is necessary to salvation, stating that John 3:5 "has tied faith to the necessity of baptism."
These men and writings represent many different theological factions, and we do not endorse all of their doctrines; nevertheless it is interesting to see that all agreed on the necessity of baptism. Third century controversies over heretic baptisms demonstrate that all Christendom of the time agreed that "there can be only one baptism, and that this baptism is essential to salvation."

Roman Catholics have always taught the essentiality of baptism, but have transformed it from an act of faith into a sacramental act by teaching the necessity and validity of infant baptism despite the lack of personal faith and repentance. This incorrectly presumes that regeneration comes by the power of the ceremony itself instead of by grace through faith.
Among Protestants, Martin Luther held that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. Article IX of the Augsburg Confession (an early Lutheran creed) states, "Baptism is necessary to salvation."
The Lutheran Catechism says, "Baptism is no trifle, but was instituted by God Himself, … it is most solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved." In accordance with his emphasis on justification by faith, Luther taught that baptism was effective only through faith, but still held that God actually forgives sin at the moment of water baptism. Luther even taught the validity of infant baptism, based on the theory that God gives faith to infants. In our estimation, Luther was incorrect in teaching infant faith and infant baptism, but he was correct in simultaneously affirming justification by faith and the essentiality of water baptism.
Most Protestants after Luther began to teach that baptism is symbolic only, but this is a comparatively new doctrine in church history and not all Protestants accept it. In addition to Luther and his followers, the Churches of Christ teach that water baptism is necessary in order to obtain remission of sins. United Church of Christ theologian Donald Bloesch stated, "Baptism plays a prominent role in our conversion and is not just a symbol of our conversion." He also wrote, "The overall witness of the New Testament seems to be that [url=http://www.rtnagel.com/louboutin.php]louboutin[/url] baptism by itself is not indispensable for salvation, but baptism joined with repentance and faith becomes the means by which people receive the gift of regeneration."
The Earliest Formula
Early post-apostolic Christians administered water baptism by using the name of Jesus in the formula. According to Heick, "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." He concluded from a passage in the writings of Justin (which we will analyze shortly) that during the period from about A.D. 130 to 140 the trinitarian baptismal formula gradually received acceptance.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states: "The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin), (b) a moral vow (Justin and perhaps Hermas, as well as already in the NT in I Peter), (c) trine immersion (Justin), (d) a confession of faith (Irenaeus, or perhaps Justin), (e) unction (Tertullian), (f) sponsors (Tertullian), (g) milk and honey (Tertullian)."
It further elaborates: "In connection with the name… the question of formula arises. The earliest known formula is 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' or some similar phrase; this is found in the Acts, and was perhaps still used by Hermas, but by the time of Justin Martyr the trine formula had become general. It is possible that the older formula survived in isolated communities, but there is no decisive contemporary evidence."
First and Second Centuries
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible admits that one could draw the following conclusion from the historical evidence: "The original form of words was 'into the name of Jesus Christ' or 'the Lord Jesus.' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development. After the one mention of it, [url=http://www.gotprintsigns.com/abercrombiepascher/‎]abercrombie pas cher[/url] Mt. 28:19, we do not find it again until Justin Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that in the Gospel."
The dictionary preferred one of the following two explanations sometimes given by trinitarians as to the use of the name of Jesus, since they are more consistent with traditional practice: (1) Baptism in the name of one person in the trinity is baptism in the name of the whole trinity and so is valid. (This explanation admits that the original formula actually was "in the name of Jesus.") (2) The phrase "in the name of Jesus" was not meant to be a formula, but [url=http://www.mxitcms.com/abercrombie/]abercrombie[/url] only signified that the baptized ones acknowledged Jesus as Lord and Christ. (Of course, this logic could be applied equally as well to Matthew 28:19, leaving us with no formula for Christian baptism.)
In addition to the sources we have cited, most other church historians agree that baptism in Jesus' name was the older formula; further quotations are reproduced in a footnote.
Hermas in the early second century wrote of baptism "in the name of the Lord" and in the "name of the Son of God." He taught that baptism caused an essential change to take place in one's life because of the use of the name, but stressed that the name was not a magical formula and could not be effective in the absence of Christian virtues. He wrote, "If you bear His name but possess not His power, it will be in vain that you bear His name."
The Didache, another second century Christian document, speaks of baptism "into the name of the Lord" but also speaks of baptism "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Some conclude that the Didache recognizes both formulas as valid. We must not overlook the possibility of interpolations, for while scholars have variously dated the Didache from A.D. 120 to 200 the only existing Greek manuscript of it dates to 1056. Moreover, it teaches other nonbiblical practices relative to baptism such as pouring as an alternative to immersion, fasting before baptism, and triple immersion.
Most scholars assert that Justin Martyr's First Apology, written around A.D. 150, contains the oldest historical reference to the trine formula. Here is the key phrase, which describes baptized persons: "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water." We should note, however, that Justin did not recite the modern trinitarian formula but explicitly included the name Jesus, probably in deference to older practice.
Justin taught that Jesus was a subordinate, second being created by God the Father and did not clearly distinguish the Holy Spirit as a third person. Consequently, it is no great comfort for trinitarians to find evidence of their formula in his writings. In fact, the modern doctrine of the trinity did not become dominant until the councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381). Just because one man in A.D. 150, who did not believe in the full deity of Christ, referred to a baptismal formula similar to the modern trinitarian one does not mean all or even most in his day had abandoned the older Jesus' name formula. Evidence for general usage of the modern trinitarian formula at this early date is not as decisive as some have indicated.
History records a possible reference to Jesus Name baptism shortly after Justin's time. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, wrote, "We are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord." His last major work, however, describes a baptismal formula that was apparently the same as Justin's.
Closely associated with the baptismal formula is the doctrine of the Godhead. The [url=http://www.sandvikfw.net/shopuk.php]hollister outlet sale[/url] early post-apostolic fathers, such as Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Hermas, were certainly not trinitarians. They basically believed in one God and in Jesus as God manifested in flesh. It is hardly surprising, then, to find no reference in their writings to a trinitarian baptismal formula.
The so-called "heretic" Marcion broke away from the Catholic Church during this time, and his followers preserved the older baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ." The Acts of Paul and Thecla, written by an Asiatic presbyter in the second century, gives an account of baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ."
Third Century
Significantly, we still find references to baptism in Jesus' name long after Justin's time. In the third century, a debate arose over the validity of baptism performed by "heretics." Stephen, Bishop of Rome (Roman Catholics consider him a pope), held such baptism to be valid, while the North African theologian Cyprian held it was not. In opposing Stephen, Cyprian discussed the case of "heretics" who baptized in the name of Jesus. He asked, "Can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ be judged to have obtained remission of sins?" He argued that the Jews in Acts properly received baptism in the name of Jesus only because they already acknowledged the Father, but that Gentiles who did not acknowledge the [url=http://www.marrakech-hotel.fr]hollister[/url] Father must be baptized in the full trinity.
"How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" Cyprian further argued that heretics deny the Father and blaspheme Him, so baptism in the name of Jesus only cannot save them.
Cyprian's opponents argued that Jesus' name baptism was always valid, even if performed by heretics, because of the power in the name of Jesus. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote to Cyprian in 256. He quoted Stephen as saying that "the name of Christ is of great advantage to faith and the sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever is baptized in the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ."
Cyprian responded to Stephen's view as follows: If this were so then heretics could also receive the Holy Spirit simply by laying on hands and invoking the name of Jesus. This would mean they would be born of the water and Spirit and so would be true Christians, even though they were outside the Catholic Church. Cyprian argued that this could not be correct. Just as the name Jesus could not impart the Holy Spirit outside the Catholic Church, so baptism in the name of Jesus only was not valid outside the Church:
"If they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit?" Historians conclude from these writings that many in Cyprian's day used the Jesus' name formula, and that probably Stephen allowed the formula. Some believe that even Cyprian accepted this baptism as long as the Catholic Church performed it and the trinity was not denied. In any case, the whole debate demonstrates that many people practiced baptism in Jesus' name during the third century A.D.
Striking verification comes from A Treatise on Re-Baptism by An Anonymous Writer. Some scholars believe the author was a fourth century monk named Ursinus, but most believe he was a bishop in the third century who opposed Cyprian. The treatise discusses what should be done about persons "who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" and who turn from their heresy to the Catholic Church. It concludes that rebaptism is not necessary: "Heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
The author makes a number of interesting points in his discussion: (1) His position had the support of "the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition" and "the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops." (2) "The power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism… affords to him… no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation," citing Acts 4:12 and Philippians 2:9-11. (3) The "invocation [url=http://www.shewyne.com/woolrichoutlet.html]woolrich sito ufficiale[/url] of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised." (4) The invocation of Jesus' name alone does not bring salvation to the heretic, but if he corrects his error, acknowledges the truth, and receives the Holy Ghost, then it becomes effective; the heretic does not "lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus." (5) This teaching does not contradict Matthew 28:19. (6) Not only were heretics baptized by "invoking the name of the Lord Jesus," but many people, both "Jews and Gentiles, fully believing as they ought, are in like manner baptized."
Fourth Century
Even after the Council of Nicea, we find mention of Jesus' name baptism, which indicates that it was still a live issue. Ambrose (340-398), although a trinitarian, apparently held it to be valid on the ground that baptism in the name of one person of the trinity is the same as baptism in the name of the whole trinity. An editor's footnote says, "This passage has given rise to the question whether St. Ambrose taught, as some others certainly did (probably on his authority) that baptism in the Name of Christ alone, without mention of the other persons is valid."
The Council of Constantinople in 381 specifically condemned Sabellian baptism, which it described as prevalent in Galatia. A fourth or fifth century addition to the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles condemns those who perform only "one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ" and requires all baptism to be performed by three immersions in the trinitarian formula. An Eastern variant of this passage further links the single immersion into Christ with modalism. Therefore, it insists that the baptismal candidate be taught that the Father or the Holy Spirit did not come in flesh and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.
The Medieval Age
The church in Constantinople condemned Sabellian baptism in a letter to Antioch around 450, the Justinian Code of 529 (Byzantine Empire) declared the death penalty for both Antitrinitarianism and rebaptism, the Council of Constantinople in 553 again condemned Sabellian baptism, and Martin Damiun (died 579), bishop of Braga, condemned Sabellian baptism for "retaining single immersion under a single name."
Bede (673-735) of England accepted the validity of baptism in Jesus' name based on the reasoning attributed to Ambrose, as did the Council of Frejus (792) and Pope Nicholas I (858-867). Other medieval writers who mentioned the Jesus Name formula were Peter Lombard (died 1160), Hugo Victor (died 1141), and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).
From this evidence we conclude; (1) Throughout church history some people were acquainted with the Jesus Name formula. (2) Many theologians regarded it as valid. (3) Since it reappears repeatedly as an issue, people in various ages apparently maintained the practice.
The Reformation Era Forward
Martin Luther encountered a dispute over the Jesus Name formula in his day. Many sixteenth and seventeenth century Antitrinitarians baptized in Jesus' name. For example, in 1572 George Schomann was baptized [url=http://www.teatrodeoro.com/hollisterde.php]hollister[/url] in "the name of Christ." Thomas Edwards of England wrote in 1646 about some "heretics" who taught that baptism using the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was a "man-made tradition and that Christian baptism was "only in the name of Jesus Christ." In the nineteenth century many of the Plymouth Brethren, as well as some other English groups, taught on the authority of Acts 2:38 that baptism should be in the name of Jesus only.
Oneness Believers Throughout History
Throughout history many have affirmed the doctrine of Oneness (the belief in one God with no distinction of persons, who came in flesh as Jesus). Since these Oneness believers denied the trinity, we assume most baptized in Jesus' name, although historical records usually are silent on the subject. Below is a brief list of nontrinitarians recorded in history who believed in the deity of Jesus and probably baptized in His name.
(1) Ante-Nicene era: The post-apostolic fathers (including Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hermas, Ignatius), possibly Irenaeus, some Montanists, Noetus, Praxeas, Epigonus, Cleomenes, probably the Roman bishops Callistus and Zephyrinus, "the majority of believers" in Tertullian's day, Sabellius.
(2) Nicene era: Marcellus of Ancyra, Photinus, Commodian, Priscillian, Sabellians.
(3) Medieval era: Sabellians, Priscillianists, possibly unknown "heretics."
(4) Reformation era: Michael Servetus (whose doctrine was known to Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin and who was burned at the stake with Calvin's approval), Emmanuel Swedenborg (who recognized the error of the trinity but taught some unusual, nonbiblical doctrines), some Anabaptists, many antitrinitarians, William Penn and many early Quakers.
(5) Nineteenth century: John Clowes (England), John Miller (U.S.), some New England Congregationalists.
(6) Twentieth century: Oneness Pentecostals, some Sabbatarians, some charismatics.
Twentieth Century
This century has seen a great revival of baptism in the name of Jesus. The modern Pentecostal movement began on January 1, 1901, and its first leader, Charles Parham, began to baptize in the name of Jesus as early as 1901 or 1902. He reasoned as follows: Since baptism identifies us with Christ's death and burial and since Jesus Christ is the only One [url=http://www.jeremyparendt.com/Barbour-Paris.php]barbour france paris[/url] who died for us, we should be baptized in Jesus' name.
The noted Pentecostal evangelist Andrew Urshan began to baptize in Jesus' name as early as 1910. Beginning in 1913, the doctrines of baptism in Jesus' name and the Oneness of God began to sweep across the North American Pentecostal movement under the leadership of Frank Ewart, R. E. McAlister, Glenn Cook, and others. Each case (Parham, Urshan, the 1913 revival) was independent of the others. Each began with prayerful Bible study and a specific experience in which God gave illumination of His Word.
In 1915 Andrew Urshan brought the Pentecostal message to Russia, where some of his converts asked him to baptize them in Jesus' name, not knowing that Urshan and others had already seen this truth. This began the Pentecostal movement in that land. A few years later, a group of Chinese Christians began to teach Oneness and baptism in Jesus' name based [url=http://www.diecastlinks.co.uk]hollister outlet[/url] solely on their reading of the Bible, not realizing that anyone else in the world believed it. In 1917 they organized the True Jesus Church, which exists in Communist China and Taiwan today.
Many prominent leaders in the early Pentecostal movement were baptized in Jesus' name, including: A. H. Argue, Frank Bartleman (Azusa Street participant and historian), E. N. Bell (one of [url=http://www.agentparadise.com]woolrich outlet[/url] two organizers of the Assemblies of God and its first General Chairman), William Booth-Clibborn, Glenn Cook, A. G. Garr, Frank Ewart (early associate of William Durham and prominent revivalist), Howard Goss (one of two organizers of the Assemblies of God and one of its executive presbyters), L. C. Hall, G. T. Haywood (prominent black leader), B. F. Lawrence, Harry van Loon, R. E. McAlister (prominent evangelist), Aimee Semple McPherson, D. C. O. Opperman (an executive presbyter in the Assemblies of God), and H. G. Rodgers.
Bell later abandoned Jesus Name baptism under pressure from trinitarian colleagues, as did Aimee McPherson, who subsequently founded the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, and R. G. Hoekstra, who has achieved financial success with his "Chaplain Ray" radio broadcast.
Bell's story is particularly interesting. At first he rejected what he called "The Sad New Issue," but then he was baptized in Jesus' name, giving three reasons why: (1) God had dealt with him personally about it for some time; (2) God took away every other message in his preaching until he would obey; and (3) this is what the apostles taught and practiced.
Bell revealed his rebaptism in a powerful article entitled "Who is Jesus Christ?" but prior to publication the Assemblies of God deleted many parts of it, including the fact of his rebaptism. The article expressed his "brand new vision" of who Jesus really was and the intense emotional experience that accompanied his new understanding and baptism. Eventually, however, Bell suppressed his new baptismal practice in order to maintain fellowship with the Assemblies of God, and in 1920 he became General Chairman a second time.
The position of the Assemblies of God on this issue is also very interesting. In 1915 the group accepted Jesus Name baptism as valid. A short time later it highly recommended a compromise formula that included both the words of Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. Finally, in 1916 it rejected the Jesus Name formula, requiring all to accept use of the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
All but one of the Assemblies of God preachers in Louisiana accepted Jesus Name baptism as [url=http://www.thehygienerevolution.com/hollister.php]hollister[/url] did almost all the early Canadian Pentecostal leaders, including the founders of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. However, in 1919 the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada renounced Oneness, accepted trinitarianism, and affiliated with the Assemblies of God.
In all, approximately twenty-five percent of American Pentecostals believe in Oneness and baptize in the name of Jesus. In addition, some trinitarian Pentecostals baptize in Jesus' name, including: (1) Bethel Temple and Bible School in Seattle, founded by W. H. Offiler; (2) The Pentecostal Church of Indonesia, which resulted from missionary efforts by that group; (3) Bethesda Missionary Temple in Detroit, pastored by James Lee Beall; and (4) Gospel Temple and Northern California Bible College, led by Ernest Gentile. Many modern charismatics have begun to baptize in Jesus' name, including some in the Maranatha Campus Ministries, which exists on more than sixty college campuses. There are approximately fifteen to twenty small Sabbath-keeping groups (apparently non-Pentecostal) that teach Oneness and baptize in Jesus' name.
Conclusion
Baptism in the name of Jesus has evidently existed throughout church history and is now enjoying a great revival.
相关的主题文章:

[url=http://www.vipaudioaccess.com/#comment-2338]Make Your Bright Future with PHP Training[/url]

[url=http://qq.497889.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=220759][/url]

[url=http://tipsandtricksworld.com/web-design/wordpress/adding-facebook-comment-box-to-wordpress-blog-in-10-minutes/comment-page-1#comment-56596]Negotiating Skills Training[/url]