The paper was very good. It went into the historical aspect, which was excellent. One very important thing was the simplicity of the language. It was easy to understand. It was easy to know where the author 2was coming from and where he was headed. It is important to have that kind of writing in our fellowship. Sometimes our clarifications only muddy the water. We should appreciate the approach taken in this paper, its simplicity, the excellent work, and the research into areas unfamiliar to most of us. We do not all have available to us the resources used by those who have worked so hard to bring this information to us.
Several points should be made about this presentation:
First, the strong Scriptural appeal is to be appreciated. That is still the United Pentecostal Church's strongest point. We stand on the Word regardless of whatever history may bring to us - distorted or otherwise. The Word of God still must be the foundation of the church.
Second, the author did a good job of appealing to Trinitarian writers who state and often deal a death blow to their own cause. He appealed to their writings and pointed out areas where they themselves are not sure that what they beleive is correct.
There is an inconsistency in the paper's use of the example of Thecla, when the author quotes E. C. Whitaker:
Similarly, in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, written in the middle of the second century, Thecla is represented as baptizing herself and saying, "In the name of Jesus Christ do I baptize myself for the last day."...If we may assume that we have here a case of the formula in ordinary use adapted to extraordinary circumstances, then it appears that the formula in the ordinary use must have been "I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ."The author concludes that a modern modalist would welcome the above statement from the theological standpoint. He later does an excellent job in dealing with the Didache, discrediting it because of the reference to baptism by pouring.The problem is that we do not approve of people baptizing themselves. Moreover, Thecla baptized herself in the name of Jesus Christ for the last day, and our position is that we baptize for the remission of sin. To take a questionable reference such as this and include it in such a fine paper could serve to discredit the paper in the eyes of a Trinitarian, especially when we use the same reasoning to discredit the Didache. There are many authentic historical references to baptism in the name of Jesus. We do not need something as questionable as this. To toss out the Didache and then use this example weakens the author's position.
Finally, a stronger scriptural development would have been helpful, particularly on our position that the early church was not primitive. The Apostle Paul was a Jew and a scholar. He knew the only Scripture at their disposal at that time and he knew it well. Jesus Himself said to the woman at the well, "We know what we weorship, for salvation is of the Jews." They certainly did not have an undeveloped position. The Early Church knew whom they worshipped. They knew what they believed and they knew why they believed it. We can have the same understanding and confidence today.
David O. Walters is the Superintendent of the North Dakota District and pastor of the First United Pentecostal Church of Bismark.
Was the Early Church Oneness or Trinitarian
Response #1
Back to homepage