Presenter Information

Kenneth Bass

Description

In this paper, I will propose two reasons why I think Oneness Pentecostals should also consider the theological contribution of Matthew 28:19 to our understanding of baptism. In some aspects these reasons will overlap. The first reason is related to the unique witness of Matthew. Literary criticism has shown us that Matthew was written for a particular audience, and no doubt circulated within that audience for some time before it was collected with the other gospels. If we accept the canonical version of Matthew, it is probable that a ‘Matthean’ community existed in which baptism was done according to Mt 28:19. The second reason is related to the New Testament canon. Because we have received the New Testament in a canonical form, any investigation of any part of that canon must account for the unique witness of each part of the canon This moves the discussion of acceptance of Mt 28:19 from the later Christological and Trinitarian controversies of the third and fourth centuries, and allows us to say something about the unique contribution of Mt 28:19 to our understanding of baptism. This approach allows us to bracket what was probably not an original consideration in the acceptance of the longer formula: the Godhead controversies of later Christianity. That Matthew 28:19 was used in those discussions should not dissuade us from looking for theological insights in that text, for many other texts were used as well, and we do not reject them for this reason. Before we look at these two reasons, however, we must look at the way Oneness typically approaches this text.

Share

COinS
 
Jan 1st, 12:00 AM

"Baptism and the Canon: Can/Should We Still Harmonize the Baptismal Formulae in Matthew and Acts?"

In this paper, I will propose two reasons why I think Oneness Pentecostals should also consider the theological contribution of Matthew 28:19 to our understanding of baptism. In some aspects these reasons will overlap. The first reason is related to the unique witness of Matthew. Literary criticism has shown us that Matthew was written for a particular audience, and no doubt circulated within that audience for some time before it was collected with the other gospels. If we accept the canonical version of Matthew, it is probable that a ‘Matthean’ community existed in which baptism was done according to Mt 28:19. The second reason is related to the New Testament canon. Because we have received the New Testament in a canonical form, any investigation of any part of that canon must account for the unique witness of each part of the canon This moves the discussion of acceptance of Mt 28:19 from the later Christological and Trinitarian controversies of the third and fourth centuries, and allows us to say something about the unique contribution of Mt 28:19 to our understanding of baptism. This approach allows us to bracket what was probably not an original consideration in the acceptance of the longer formula: the Godhead controversies of later Christianity. That Matthew 28:19 was used in those discussions should not dissuade us from looking for theological insights in that text, for many other texts were used as well, and we do not reject them for this reason. Before we look at these two reasons, however, we must look at the way Oneness typically approaches this text.