THE FORMULA The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christian baptism was always performed in Jesus' name. This is the Formula and the New Testament knows no other! Dr. Boyd grudgingly hints this may be so: "Thus, even if the earliest disciples did in fact baptize in Jesus' name, it should at least be very clear they did not do so with the Oneness significance..." (p. 141).He further states: "The more informed Oneness Pentecostals like to argue that Jesus' Name baptism was practiced not only in Acts, but in the second and third century as well. And, indeed, there does exist a small amount of evidence to this effect." (p. 141)."If the earliest disciples did in fact baptize in Jesus' Name" he says! There's no "if" about it! We have the record, for "it is written." They baptized in no other way! He surely must admit this. He is an educated man, a graduate of Princeton! He reads the Greek; he has an open Bible; he has access to great libraries, he knows what scholarship says in this point. Before we examine the scriptural record, let us hear the conclusion reached by eminent scholars from just such a scriptural examination.
G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY This Baptist scholar and historian, fluent in classic languages, was commissioned by the Baptist Church to write a definitive volume on water baptism for the benefit of the Baptist Church. His volume is a masterpiece of research. He has left no stone unturned. The work is truly the "be all" and "end all" on the baptismal controversy. He did not consider the evidence "a small amount" for he writes: "There is not one example in the whole New Testament literature of a baptism taking place in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, p. 82-83).He further proves that baptism was performed with the invocation of Jesus Name, was associated with remission of sins, and followed by a charismatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit. What does that sound like? And this was from a man who has no "axe to grind" -- 2:38 or otherwise!
WILHELM BOUSSET This German historian writes, "It is still essentially a baptism in the Name of Jesus" (Wilhelm Bousett, Kurios Christos, p. 295). He goes on to say, "The Testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula (in Jesus name - ed.) down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matt. 28:19, the trinitarian formula was only later inserted" (Bousett, p. 295).
DR. ARMITAGE ROBINSON He writes: "In the earliest times, however, baptism appears to have been administered 'in the name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 2:38, 10:48), or 'Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16; 19:5). And on the use of the single baptismal formula St. Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 1:13 seems to be based..." (Ephesians p. 234ff).To this conclusion of Dr. Armitage is added the endorsement of Dr. Charles Gore, in his masterful work on Christian history and doctrine entitled the "Reconstruction of Belief": "I have expressed disagreement with this in the past, but I desire to retract the disagreement. I think the evidence is fairly convincing that at the beginning only the single name was used. Down to the time of the Schoolmen this view prevailed, see St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Th. 3A qu. 66 a. 6" (Gore, 745-746).
