Baptismal Formula Debates in Early Pentecostalism: Scripture, Practice, and Authority (1906–1925) 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, and Revelation 4–18

 

 

 

Baptismal Formula Debates in Early Pentecostalism:

Scripture, Practice, and Authority (1906–1925)

1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, and Revelation 4–18

 

By

Clayton R. Hall Jr.

 

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

Great Commission Bible College – Carl Juncttio, MO

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of D. Min./Pentecostal History DISS923

 

February 2025          
Early Pentecostalism emerged as a restorationist movement committed to recovering apostolic faith and practice through a combination of biblical primitivism, Spirit-led experience, and revival culture. While early Pentecostals shared a strong emphasis on Scripture and obedience, significant doctrinal disagreement arose concerning the proper baptismal formula, particularly following the 1913 Arroyo Seco camp meeting. What began as a question of baptismal wording soon developed into a defining theological and institutional controversy that contributed to the fragmentation of the Pentecostal movement.

            This dissertation examines the baptismal formula debates in early Pentecostalism between 1906 and 1925, focusing on how Scripture, practice, and authority were interpreted and contested during this formative period. Rather than treating the controversy as a purely theological dispute, this study argues that the baptismal formula debate functioned as a catalyst for broader questions regarding hermeneutical priority, apostolic precedent, and ecclesial authority within a decentralized revival movement.

            Using a historical-theological methodology, this research analyzes primary sources including early Pentecostal periodicals, sermons, tracts, and correspondence, alongside critical secondary scholarship on Pentecostal origins and development. Particular attention is given to how competing groups appealed either to the dominical command of Matthew 28:19 or to the apostolic practice reflected in the book of Acts, revealing fundamentally different approaches to scriptural interpretation. The study further explores how experiential claims, prophetic assertions, and revival testimony were employed to legitimize doctrinal change, and how emerging denominational structures responded by formalizing doctrine and regulating ministerial credentials.

 

            The findings demonstrate that baptismal practice became a central marker of doctrinal identity in early Pentecostalism precisely because of the movement’s commitment to restorationism and its lack of centralized authority. As institutional consolidation progressed, baptismal formulas increasingly served as boundary-defining mechanisms that shaped Pentecostal streams for generations to come.

            This study contributes to Pentecostal historiography by clarifying the historical dynamics underlying the baptismal controversy and by offering ministry-relevant insights into how doctrinal disputes arise, intensify, and are resolved within Spirit-led movements. The conclusions provide contemporary Pentecostal leaders with historical perspective for navigating theological disagreement while preserving unity and fidelity to Scripture.
I. Thesis Explication

            This dissertation contends that the baptismal formula debates that emerged within early Pentecostalism between 1906 and 1925 must be understood primarily as disputes concerning interpretive authority and ecclesial legitimacy, rather than as disagreements over baptismal wording or ritual practice alone. While the surface issue concerned whether Christian baptism should be administered according to the Trinitarian formula articulated in Matthew 28:19 or exclusively “in the name of Jesus Christ” as reflected in the baptismal narratives of the book of Acts, the deeper conflict centered on how Scripture was to be interpreted, which biblical texts were to be prioritized, and who possessed the authority to determine normative doctrine within a restorationist revival movement.

            Early Pentecostalism arose in a context characterized by biblical primitivism, a desire to recover the faith and practices of the apostolic church, and a profound openness to Spirit-led experience. These commitments fostered a decentralized ecclesial environment in which doctrinal consensus was initially assumed rather than formally articulated. Prior to 1913, baptismal practice among Pentecostals largely reflected inherited evangelical and Holiness traditions, with minimal theological reflection on baptismal formula. However, the emergence of Jesus Name baptism advocacy following the Arroyo Seco camp meeting disrupted this implicit consensus by explicitly challenging whether inherited tradition or apostolic precedent should serve as the primary interpretive norm.

            Proponents of Jesus Name baptism appealed to the consistent pattern of baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” found in the Acts narrative, arguing that apostolic practice represented the authoritative application of Jesus’ command and therefore held interpretive primacy. Conversely, defenders of the Trinitarian formula emphasized the explicit dominical command of Matthew 28:19, asserting that Christ’s instruction provided the definitive and non-negotiable framework for baptismal obedience. These competing appeals revealed divergent hermeneutical assumptions, particularly regarding the relationship between narrative precedent and didactic command, as well as the role of apostolic example in doctrinal formation.

            As the debate intensified, baptismal practice increasingly functioned as a marker of doctrinal allegiance and ecclesial identity. What began as an interpretive disagreement became a test of fellowship, ministerial legitimacy, and institutional loyalty. In response to the growing controversy, emerging Pentecostal denominations, most notably the Assemblies of God, were compelled to formalize doctrinal positions and establish mechanisms of credentialing and exclusion. These institutional responses effectively transformed baptismal formula from a secondary practice into a boundary-defining criterion that reshaped Pentecostal organizational structures.

            Ultimately, this dissertation demonstrates that the baptismal formula debates played a decisive role in the institutional realignment and fragmentation of early Pentecostalism. The controversy exposed the inherent tensions within a movement that sought both Spirit-led freedom and doctrinal coherence, revealing how authority was negotiated in the absence of established ecclesial structures. By examining the historical dynamics of this debate, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how doctrine, practice, and authority interact within renewal movements, offering critical insight for contemporary Pentecostal leaders navigating theological disagreement while seeking to preserve unity and fidelity to Scripture.
II. Research Problem

            Early Pentecostalism emerged as a Spirit-driven restorationist movement that emphasized biblical primitivism, apostolic faith, and experiential obedience to Scripture. While this movement exhibited remarkable unity in its early revival phase, it lacked formalized theological structures and centralized ecclesial authority. As a result, doctrinal assumptions were often inherited rather than critically examined, particularly in relation to baptismal practice. Prior to 1913, most Pentecostals practiced baptism according to established evangelical and Holiness conventions, with limited theological reflection on baptismal formula.

            The emergence of the baptismal formula controversy following the 1913 Arroyo Seco camp meeting exposed a significant theological and structural vulnerability within early Pentecostalism. Competing interpretations of Scripture regarding the proper baptismal formula, specifically appeals to the dominical command of Matthew 28:19 and to the apostolic practice recorded in the book of Acts, generated sharp disagreement among Pentecostal leaders and congregations. These disagreements were not resolved through an agreed-upon interpretive authority, as early Pentecostalism lacked established mechanisms for doctrinal adjudication.

            Existing Pentecostal historiography has often treated the baptismal formula controversy primarily as a theological or liturgical dispute associated with the later development of Oneness theology. Such approaches frequently overlook the broader historical significance of the debate as a contest over interpretive authority, ecclesial legitimacy, and doctrinal normativity within a decentralized revival movement. Consequently, insufficient attention has been given to how baptismal practice functioned as a mechanism for defining identity, regulating fellowship, and shaping institutional structures during the formative years of Pentecostalism.

 

            The research problem addressed in this dissertation is the lack of a comprehensive historical-theological analysis that examines the baptismal formula debates within early Pentecostalism as disputes over authority rather than mere ritual variation. Without such analysis, the processes by which early Pentecostals negotiated Scripture, experience, and institutional power remain inadequately understood. This gap limits contemporary Pentecostal leaders’ ability to interpret historical doctrinal conflicts with nuance and to apply those lessons to present-day theological disagreements.

            This study seeks to address this problem by investigating how baptismal formula debates between 1906 and 1925 revealed competing hermeneutical priorities and contributed to the institutional realignment and fragmentation of the Pentecostal movement. By situating the controversy within its broader historical, theological, and ecclesial context, the dissertation aims to clarify how authority was constructed, contested, and ultimately codified in early Pentecostalism, providing both historical insight and ministry-relevant perspective.
III. Research Questions

Central Research Question

1. How did the baptismal formula debates in early Pentecostalism between 1906 and 1925 reflect and reshape competing understandings of scriptural interpretation and ecclesial authority?
2. In what ways did these debates contribute to the institutional realignment and fragmentation of the Pentecostal movement?

Subordinate Research Questions

1. What assumptions about Christian baptism and baptismal formula characterized Pentecostal practice prior to the emergence of controversy in 1913? This question establishes the historical baseline necessary to understand why the debate represented a significant disruption rather than a continuation of existing theological reflection.
2. How did proponents of Trinitarian baptism and advocates of Jesus Name baptism each interpret and prioritize relevant biblical texts, particularly Matthew 28:19 and the baptismal narratives in the book of Acts? This question examines the hermeneutical frameworks employed by both sides and how Scripture was used to establish doctrinal normativity.
3. In what ways did appeals to apostolic precedent, dominical command, spiritual experience, and prophetic revelation function as competing sources of authority in the baptismal formula debate? This question explores how authority was constructed and legitimized in a movement that valued both Scripture and Spirit-led experience.
4. How did revival culture, testimony, and charismatic claims influence the reception and spread of baptismal formula changes within early Pentecostal communities? This question highlights the role of experiential validation in doctrinal development.
5. How did emerging Pentecostal denominations and leaders respond institutionally to the baptismal controversy, particularly through credentialing practices, doctrinal statements, and boundary-setting measures? This question analyzes the relationship between theological disagreement and organizational consolidation.
6. What long-term effects did the baptismal formula debates have on Pentecostal identity, unity, and doctrinal development beyond the immediate period of controversy? This question connects the historical findings to broader patterns in Pentecostal history and theology.

Alignment with Dissertation Goals

Together, these research questions:

1. Directly support the central thesis that the baptismal controversy was fundamentally about authority
2. Provide a clear framework for historical and theological analysis
3. Ensure coherence between primary sources, chapter structure, and conclusions
4. Meet Doctor of Ministry expectations for both academic rigor and ministry relevance

 

 

IV. Methodology

      This dissertation employs a historical-theological methodology to examine baptismal formula debates in early Pentecostalism between 1906 and 1925, with particular attention to how interpretive authority and ecclesial legitimacy were constructed, contested, and institutionalized. The study is qualitative in both data and analysis; it is descriptive in that it reconstructs events and arguments as they unfolded in their historical setting, and analytical in that it evaluates patterns of reasoning, authority claims, and institutional outcomes.

      The project is intentionally interpretive rather than experimental. Because the research concerns historical phenomena, the aim is not to test hypotheses through measurement, but to develop a coherent, evidence-based account of (1) how the controversy emerged, (2) how Scripture was deployed by competing factions, and (3) how organizational structures responded to and were shaped by the dispute. The “theological” dimension of the methodology does not function as confessional adjudication of correctness; rather, it analyzes the theological reasoning processes that early Pentecostals employed, especially their use of Scripture, apostolic precedent, dominical command, and charismatic experience.

      This approach is appropriate to Pentecostal history because early Pentecostalism was not merely a doctrinal movement, but a lived ecclesial phenomenon in which belief, experience, practice, and authority were intertwined. Consequently, a purely sociological approach would risk underestimating the primacy of Scripture in Pentecostal self-understanding, while a purely doctrinal approach could fail to account for how revival culture and institutional pressures shaped outcomes. Historical-theological analysis provides the balanced framework needed to account for both.

V. Analytical Procedures

The dissertation’s analysis proceeds through an explicit, replicable set of steps. This is crucial for demonstrating that findings emerge from evidence rather than assumptions.

Stage 1: Historical Reconstruction (Narrative Analysis)

      The first analytic stage establishes a historically grounded narrative of: baseline baptismal practice before 1913, catalysts that intensified debate after 1913, key leaders, networks, and mechanisms of diffusion, denominational and congregational reactions, major turning points leading into institutional consolidation.

      Deliverable: a documented timeline of events and the major argumentative phases, supported by citations to contemporaneous sources.

Stage 2: Comparative Hermeneutical Analysis (Text-Use Analysis)

      The second stage compares how each side used Scripture, with focus on: text selection: which passages were emphasized or minimized, text prioritization: narrative precedent versus dominical command, interpretive logic: how conclusions were derived, appeals to authority: “thus saith the Lord,” apostolic pattern, Spirit revelation, tradition, or ecclesial order.

      This stage will specifically analyze how Matthew 28:19 and Acts baptism narratives functioned differently within each interpretive framework, and how each side justified its hermeneutical hierarchy.

      Deliverable: a categorized comparison chart (in prose form) that identifies recurring argument types, proof-text patterns, and interpretive assumptions.

 

Stage 3: Authority and Institutionalization Analysis (Ecclesial Boundary Analysis)

      The third stage investigates how contested doctrine became regulated practice through:

formation of doctrinal statements, credentialing and disciplinary measures, public defenses of organizational legitimacy, mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, shifting definitions of what constitutes “apostolic” Pentecostal identity.

      This stage will examine how authority moved from charismatic diffusion and revival legitimacy toward denominational policy. It will treat institutionalization not merely as bureaucratic development but as a theological act, since it defines orthodoxy and shapes lived ecclesial identity.

      Deliverable: analysis showing how baptismal formula served as a boundary marker and how that boundary shaped denominational formation and fragmentation.

Integrative Interpretive Principle

      Across all stages, the analysis will explicitly account for the interaction between: Scripture (textual authority and interpretive method), experience (revival testimony, prophetic claims, spiritual validation), and institution (polity, credentials, doctrinal statements).

      This reflects the lived reality of early Pentecostalism, where theology was enacted and authenticated through both Word and Spirit, while also being shaped by emergent structures.
VI. Delimitations and Limitations

1. Delimitations (Intentional Boundaries) This study is deliberately delimited to ensure feasibility and analytical clarity:

Chronological delimitation: 1906–1925

      This window captures early Pentecostal emergence, the 1913 disruption, and the period of institutional consolidation that followed. Discussion outside this window will be limited to essential background or brief outcomes.

Geographical delimitation: primarily the United States

      Because the core controversy and the most accessible primary documentation are concentrated in American Pentecostal networks and denominational developments, global cases will be acknowledged only as they directly reflect diffusion and identity formation.

Topical delimitation: baptismal formula debates

      The dissertation does not attempt a full theology of baptism, sacramentology, or the entire history of the Oneness-Trinitarian divide. Godhead theology will be addressed only insofar as it directly intersects baptismal formula arguments and institutional responses.

Analytical delimitation: historical-theological interpretation, not doctrinal adjudication

      The dissertation examines how early Pentecostals argued and institutionalized their conclusions, not which side was correct. This delimitation protects the study’s scholarly credibility and keeps the focus on authority dynamics.

Limitations (Constraints That May Affect Findings) Several limitations are intrinsic to historical research:

Survival and accessibility of sources

      Not all sermons, letters, or local church records survive. The public record may privilege leaders with publishing access. The dissertation will mitigate this by triangulating sources and acknowledging representational limits.

Rhetorical bias in polemical documents

      Many sources are written to persuade, defend, or condemn. The study will treat polemical language as data rather than as neutral description, analyzing what it reveals about authority contestation.

Denominational overrepresentation

      Formal denominations often preserve records better than independent networks. This can skew historical visibility toward groups with archives. The dissertation will address this by incorporating periodicals and independent tracts where possible.

Risk of retrospective interpretation

      Later doctrinal systems can influence how early debates are read. The study will minimize anachronism by interpreting arguments within their contemporaneous context and by carefully distinguishing early formulations from later doctrinal refinements.

 

VII. Ethical Considerations

      Although the project involves no human subjects, ethical standards still apply in relation to historical representation, scholarly integrity, and theological sensitivity.

Accuracy and Fair Representation

      All sources will be cited precisely and represented in context. The dissertation will avoid selective quotation that distorts an author’s intent. When interpreting contested material, the study will present the strongest form of each side’s argument before evaluating implications.

Transparency of Interpretation

      Interpretive claims will be grounded in evidence. Where inference is made, it will be clearly identified as inference and supported by reasoning and corroborating data where available.

Avoidance of Polemics

      Because the topic remains doctrinally sensitive, especially within Pentecostal communities, the dissertation will maintain an academic tone and will not employ caricature, ridicule, or dismissive language. The aim is historical understanding and ministry learning, not sectarian victory.

 

 

Respect for Religious Communities

      Early Pentecostal actors will be treated as sincere theological agents shaped by their context, spiritual commitments, and perceived obligations to Scripture. The study will aim to interpret their actions sympathetically without endorsing all claims.

Use of Copyrighted and Archival Materials

      Where archival collections or proprietary reproductions are used, the study will follow institutional guidelines for citation and reproduction limits. All usage will comply with academic standards for copyrighted material.
Chapter One: Introduction

Introduction

      Early Pentecostalism emerged in the opening years of the twentieth century as a revival movement shaped decisively by biblical primitivism, restorationist theology, and a widespread conviction that the spiritual experiences and ecclesial practices recorded in the New Testament were not confined to the apostolic era but were normative for the contemporary church. Pentecostals believed that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit described in the book of Acts represented a divine pattern rather than a closed historical episode. Consequently, the early movement did not view itself as inaugurating a new theological system or ecclesial structure, but as participating in a divine work of restoration that sought to recover the faith, power, and practices of the apostolic community.

      This restorationist self-understanding fostered a deep reverence for Scripture, particularly the Lukan narrative of Acts, which functioned as both a historical account and a theological blueprint for Christian life and ministry. Early Pentecostals approached the biblical text with the expectation that the same God who acted in the apostolic church continued to act in the present through the Holy Spirit. As a result, Scripture was read not only as authoritative instruction but also as a living testimony whose patterns could be reenacted in contemporary experience. This hermeneutical posture blurred the distinction between description and prescription, especially in narratives that portrayed the reception of the Spirit, manifestations of spiritual gifts, and the administration of baptism.

      At the same time, early Pentecostals affirmed the legitimacy of Spirit-led experience as a means by which Scripture was illuminated and applied. Testimonies of glossolalia, divine healing, prophetic utterance, and miraculous intervention were not regarded as secondary or subjective additions to biblical faith, but as confirmations of God’s ongoing work and as evidence of continuity with apostolic Christianity. Experience, however, was not viewed as autonomous; rather, it was interpreted within a biblical framework that emphasized obedience to the Word of God. This dynamic interaction between Scripture and experience became a defining feature of Pentecostal theology and practice.

      Within this theological environment, practices such as Spirit baptism, divine healing, and water baptism were understood as tangible expressions of faithfulness to God’s revealed will. These practices were not treated merely as ecclesial rites or symbolic observances, but as acts of obedience that demonstrated alignment with apostolic precedent and submission to divine authority. Water baptism, in particular, was initially assumed rather than extensively theorized, reflecting inherited evangelical and Holiness traditions. Nevertheless, it was consistently framed as an essential response to the gospel, grounded in the example of the early church and imbued with spiritual significance.

      This primitivist and experiential orientation created both the vitality and the vulnerability of early Pentecostalism. While it empowered believers to expect the miraculous and to challenge established ecclesiastical norms, it also left unresolved questions concerning how Scripture should be interpreted when apostolic precedent appeared to diverge from inherited tradition. The tension between restorationist aspiration and ecclesial continuity would later surface with particular force in debates over baptismal formula, revealing the underlying complexities of authority, interpretation, and practice within a movement committed to recovering the life of the New Testament church.

      Despite this shared commitment, early Pentecostalism lacked centralized theological structures or formal mechanisms for adjudicating doctrinal disagreement. In its earliest phase, theological unity was assumed rather than systematically defined. Water baptism, in particular, was widely practiced according to inherited evangelical and Holiness norms, and little sustained attention was given to the theological significance of baptismal formula. Early Pentecostal publications, such as The Apostolic Faith, reflect this assumption, presenting baptism as an act of obedience and public testimony without extended reflection on formulaic specificity[1]  (Bible Teaching 3). This relative consensus, however, proved fragile.

      The baptismal formula debates that emerged after 1913 marked a decisive and irreversible turning point in the development of early Pentecostalism. What initially appeared to be a narrow question concerning the wording used in water baptism quickly escalated into a comprehensive theological controversy that exposed unresolved tensions within the movement’s interpretive and ecclesial framework. Sparked by renewed attention to apostolic baptismal practice in the book of Acts, particularly the repeated references to baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ,” the debate challenged assumptions that had previously gone largely unquestioned. Early Pentecostals were compelled to confront whether inherited baptismal traditions or perceived apostolic patterns should serve as the definitive norm for obedience.

      The controversy revealed fundamentally different approaches to scriptural interpretation. Advocates of Jesus Name baptism argued that the narrative consistency of the Acts accounts reflected the authoritative application of Jesus’ teaching by the apostles and therefore possessed interpretive primacy. From this perspective, apostolic practice was understood as the inspired embodiment of Christ’s command, rendering it determinative for contemporary faith and practice. In contrast, defenders of the Trinitarian baptismal formula emphasized the explicit dominical command recorded in Matthew 28:19, asserting that Jesus’ instruction provided the controlling framework by which all subsequent practice must be interpreted. These divergent positions reflected competing hermeneutical priorities, particularly regarding the relationship between narrative precedent and didactic command, and whether descriptive passages in Acts could function normatively for the church.

      Beyond hermeneutics, the baptismal formula debates exposed deeper disagreements concerning apostolic authority and ecclesial legitimacy. For many early Pentecostals, appeals to apostolic precedent carried exceptional weight within a restorationist movement that sought to recover the life of the primitive church. At the same time, the absence of centralized authority meant that no universally recognized mechanism existed for resolving conflicting interpretations. As a result, authority was asserted through a combination of scriptural argumentation, spiritual experience, and claims of divine revelation, each competing for legitimacy within the movement.

      As the controversy intensified, baptismal practice increasingly functioned as a boundary-defining marker of doctrinal identity. What had once been a shared ritual became a means of distinguishing orthodoxy from error and of determining fellowship and ministerial recognition. This shift had significant institutional consequences. Emerging Pentecostal denominations were forced to clarify doctrinal positions, formalize statements of faith, and establish credentialing standards in response to the controversy. In doing so, baptismal formula became a catalyst for organizational realignment, contributing directly to the fragmentation of early Pentecostalism into distinct theological and ecclesial streams.

      Ultimately, the baptismal formula debates demonstrated how doctrinal disputes within Spirit-led movements can accelerate the transition from revivalist fluidity to institutional consolidation. The controversy not only reshaped Pentecostal theology but also redefined the movement’s structures of authority, leaving a lasting imprint on Pentecostal identity and denominational development.

      The historical problem addressed in this study lies in the tendency of Pentecostal historiography to treat the baptismal formula controversy primarily as a theological dispute or as a precursor to later doctrinal divisions. Such approaches often overlook the extent to which the controversy functioned as a contest over authority within a decentralized revival movement. Steven J. Land has demonstrated that early Pentecostal theology was formed through a dynamic interaction of spirituality, experience, and practice rather than through systematic doctrinal formulation[2] (Land 19–22). This insight suggests that baptismal debates cannot be adequately understood apart from the lived ecclesial context in which authority was negotiated and enforced.

      Donald W. Dayton’s analysis of restorationism further clarifies this dynamic by showing that appeals to apostolic faith often generated tension between inherited traditions and newly recovered interpretations of Scripture[3] (Dayton 23–25). In the case of early Pentecostalism, restorationist impulses empowered believers to challenge established norms while simultaneously leaving the movement vulnerable to fragmentation. Without a shared interpretive authority, doctrinal disagreement escalated into organizational division.

      This dissertation employs a historical-theological methodology to examine the baptismal formula debates in early Pentecostalism between 1906 and 1925. Drawing on the methodological framework articulated by Alister E. McGrath, the study analyzes doctrinal development within its historical context while attending to the theological reasoning that shaped ecclesial outcomes[4] (McGrath 7–9). By integrating historical reconstruction with theological analysis, the study seeks to explain not only what early Pentecostals believed about baptism, but how and why those beliefs became institutionalized.

      The significance of this study is both historical and ministerial, addressing a critical intersection between theological development and ecclesial practice within early Pentecostalism. From a historical perspective, this dissertation contributes to Pentecostal historiography by clarifying the processes through which doctrinal disputes moved from theological disagreement to institutional division. Rather than treating fragmentation as an inevitable consequence of doctrinal diversity, the study demonstrates how specific interpretive decisions, authority claims, and organizational responses transformed disagreement into separation. By tracing the baptismal formula debates within their immediate historical context, the research illuminates how early Pentecostals navigated, and ultimately institutionalized, conflict in the absence of established theological and ecclesial structures.

 

      Historically, the study challenges reductionist interpretations that isolate the baptismal controversy as a purely theological or liturgical disagreement. Instead, it reveals the debate as a complex struggle over interpretive authority within a restorationist movement that valued both biblical fidelity and Spirit-led experience. This reframing allows for a more nuanced understanding of Pentecostal fragmentation, showing that division occurred not simply because of doctrinal difference, but because of unresolved questions concerning who had the authority to define orthodoxy, how Scripture should be prioritized, and how apostolic precedent should be applied. As such, the study provides a clearer account of how early Pentecostal identity was shaped through conflict as well as revival.

      From a ministerial perspective, the study offers contemporary Pentecostal leaders historically informed insight into the dynamics of doctrinal disagreement within Spirit-led movements. Many Pentecostal communities today continue to wrestle with questions of biblical interpretation, experiential authority, and institutional oversight. By examining how early Pentecostals negotiated these tensions, this research equips leaders to recognize patterns through which theological disagreements escalate, become boundary-defining, and eventually reshape ecclesial structures. Understanding these historical dynamics enables leaders to engage doctrinal conflict with greater intentionality, humility, and pastoral wisdom.

      Furthermore, by interpreting the baptismal formula debates as disputes over authority rather than mere ritual practice, the study provides a framework for understanding how unity, doctrine, and institutional order interact within renewal movements. It highlights the necessity of clarifying interpretive norms and authority structures without extinguishing spiritual vitality or suppressing sincere theological inquiry. In doing so, the research underscores the importance of balancing fidelity to Scripture with attentiveness to the Spirit’s work, particularly in movements that prioritize experiential faith.

      Ultimately, this study serves both the academy and the church by demonstrating that historical reflection is not merely descriptive but formational. By recovering the lessons embedded in early Pentecostal struggles over baptism, authority, and unity, the dissertation offers a constructive lens through which contemporary Pentecostal leaders may approach doctrinal disagreement in ways that preserve both theological integrity and ecclesial cohesion.

Chapter Two: Baptism in the Pre-1913 Pentecostal Context

Introduction

      Prior to the emergence of doctrinal controversy in 1913, water baptism occupied a largely unquestioned and assumed position within early Pentecostal practice. While early Pentecostals were intensely focused on Spirit baptism, glossolalia, divine healing, and an imminent eschatological hope, water baptism did not receive the same level of theological scrutiny or debate. This imbalance of emphasis was not accidental. Rather, it reflected the movement’s revivalist priorities and its inheritance from late nineteenth-century evangelical and Holiness traditions, in which water baptism was widely regarded as a settled matter of Christian obedience rather than a locus of doctrinal innovation.

      Early Pentecostals entered the movement with well-formed assumptions about Christian initiation that had been shaped by their previous ecclesial affiliations. Within evangelical Protestantism and the Holiness movement, water baptism was commonly understood as a symbolic act of obedience following conversion, a public testimony of repentance and faith, and a sign of identification with Christ. The theological meaning of baptismal formula itself was rarely interrogated, as Trinitarian language drawn from Matthew 28:19 was broadly accepted as normative and uncontroversial. As a result, early Pentecostals largely carried these assumptions forward without sustained reflection on whether restorationist commitments required reevaluation of baptismal practice.

      This inherited framework helps explain why early Pentecostal discourse devoted far greater attention to Spirit baptism than to water baptism. Spirit baptism was perceived as the distinctive mark of Pentecostal identity and the experiential evidence that God was restoring apostolic power to the church. Water baptism, by contrast, was understood as a prerequisite act of obedience already familiar to converts and therefore did not initially function as a defining theological boundary. The relative silence surrounding baptismal formula in early Pentecostal publications indicates that it was not yet viewed as an area requiring recovery or reform.

      This chapter therefore seeks to establish the theological and practical baseline of baptismal belief and practice within early Pentecostalism prior to the rise of baptismal formula debates. By examining early Pentecostal periodicals and situating them within their broader ecclesial and revivalist context, the chapter demonstrates that baptismal formula was not initially perceived as a contested doctrinal issue. Instead, it remained embedded within inherited evangelical patterns of practice and functioned as a stable, if under-theorized, component of Pentecostal life.

      Establishing this baseline is critical for understanding the significance of the debates that followed. The baptismal controversy did not arise from a long-standing dispute or from gradual theological development, but from a sudden reorientation of interpretive attention toward apostolic precedent in the book of Acts. Only by recognizing that baptismal formula had previously been assumed rather than contested can the disruptive impact of the post-1913 debates be fully appreciated. This foundational context clarifies how an inherited practice was transformed into a defining doctrinal boundary and sets the stage for examining the interpretive, theological, and institutional forces that precipitated that transformation.

 

 

Evangelical and Holiness Roots of Early Pentecostal Baptism

      Early Pentecostalism did not arise in a theological vacuum, but developed organically from the soil of nineteenth-century evangelical Protestantism and the Wesleyan Holiness movement, both of which exercised decisive influence over Pentecostal understandings of Christian initiation. Within these traditions, water baptism was affirmed as an act of obedience following conversion and as a public testimony of faith rather than as a sacramental means of regeneration. This non-sacramental view of baptism emphasized personal repentance, conscious faith, and voluntary submission to Christ, aligning with revivalist emphases on individual religious experience and moral transformation.

      In both evangelical and Holiness contexts, baptism was typically administered using Trinitarian language derived from Matthew 28:19, and the baptismal formula itself was rarely subjected to extended theological analysis. The Trinitarian wording was received as a settled biblical mandate rather than as a point of interpretive inquiry. As a result, the formula functioned more as an assumed liturgical convention than as a doctrinal boundary. The absence of sustained debate over baptismal wording within these traditions meant that early Pentecostals inherited not only the practice of baptism, but also the assumption that its form required no reconsideration.

      This inherited framework exerted a formative influence on early Pentecostal assumptions and practices. Because Pentecostals viewed themselves as participants in a renewal of apostolic power rather than as reformers of every aspect of Christian tradition, they initially focused their restorationist energy on experiences they believed had been lost or neglected, particularly Spirit baptism and the manifestation of spiritual gifts. Water baptism, by contrast, was perceived as an area in which the broader evangelical church had largely remained faithful to biblical instruction, and therefore did not initially attract the same restorative scrutiny.

      As Edith L. Blumhofer observes, early Pentecostals “brought with them assumptions about Christian initiation that were already well established within evangelical Protestantism”[5] (BlumHofer 44). These assumptions included believer’s baptism as normative, a symbolic understanding of the rite, and the use of Trinitarian language as an uncontroversial expression of obedience to Christ’s command. Because these views were broadly shared across the evangelical spectrum, early Pentecostals did not initially perceive baptismal formula as a matter requiring theological reevaluation or doctrinal clarification.

      This lack of initial scrutiny is significant. It reveals that early Pentecostal restorationism was selective rather than comprehensive, directed toward areas where practitioners perceived discontinuity between contemporary church life and the apostolic witness. Only when renewed attention to the book of Acts raised questions about whether apostolic baptismal practice diverged from inherited tradition did baptismal formula become a contested issue. The assumptions carried over from evangelical and Holiness contexts thus created a theological baseline that would later be destabilized, setting the stage for the baptismal formula debates that emerged after 1913.

 

 

Baptism in The Apostolic Faith

      The early Pentecostal newspaper The Apostolic Faith, published from the Azusa Street Mission beginning in 1906, provides critical insight into baptismal assumptions prior to the emergence of doctrinal controversy. As the primary public voice of the Azusa revival, the paper functioned both as a theological witness and as a practical guide for converts and sympathizers. Its treatment of baptism is therefore especially instructive, not only for what it states explicitly, but also for what it leaves unaddressed. Articles that reference water baptism consistently emphasize themes of obedience, repentance, and identification with Christ, framing baptism as a natural and expected response to conversion rather than as a subject requiring detailed theological exposition.

      In an early issue, baptism is described simply as “an ordinance commanded by our Lord” and presented without qualification or elaboration regarding formula or wording[6] (Bible Teaching 3). This language reflects inherited evangelical assumptions in which baptism was viewed as an act of submission to Christ’s command rather than as a doctrinally complex rite requiring precise formulation. The absence of any discussion concerning whether baptism should be administered in a particular name or formula indicates that such questions had not yet entered the theological consciousness of the movement. Baptismal practice was assumed to be sufficiently understood and biblically grounded and therefore did not demand sustained attention.

      The silence of The Apostolic Faith on baptismal formula is itself historically significant. The paper frequently addressed contested and divisive issues within the broader holiness and Pentecostal worlds, including sanctification, Spirit baptism, the nature of spiritual gifts, and accusations of fanaticism. Editorial space was regularly devoted to clarifying theological positions and defending the legitimacy of Pentecostal experience. That baptismal formula did not appear among these disputed topics suggests that it was not perceived as problematic or in need of clarification during the earliest phase of the movement.

      This silence strongly implies that early Pentecostals at Azusa assumed continuity with prevailing evangelical baptismal practice. Because Trinitarian baptismal language was widely accepted across Protestant denominations, it functioned as a shared ecclesial norm rather than as a theological boundary marker. The lack of controversy further suggests that early Pentecostal restorationism was not initially directed toward reevaluating every aspect of Christian ritual but was instead focused on experiences and practices believed to have been lost or neglected by the broader church.

      Cecil M. Robeck Jr.’s observation that Azusa participants “were far more concerned with receiving the power of the Holy Spirit than with reexamining every aspect of Christian ritual” underscores this point[7] (Robeck 123). The revival’s theological energy was concentrated on Spirit baptism as empowerment for witness, rather than on water baptism as a site of doctrinal reform. Within this revivalist context, baptism functioned as a settled and uncontested practice, embedded within the inherited framework of evangelical Christianity.

      Taken together, the content and omissions of The Apostolic Faith demonstrate that prior to 1913, baptismal formula was neither a source of controversy nor a marker of doctrinal identity within early Pentecostalism. This historical reality is essential for understanding the disruptive impact of the baptismal formula debates that followed. Only against the backdrop of assumed continuity and relative theological silence can the later emergence of intense disagreement over baptismal practice be fully appreciated.

Evidence from Word and Witness

      Further confirmation of early Pentecostal continuity with Trinitarian baptismal language appears in Word and Witness, the influential Pentecostal periodical edited by E. N. Bell beginning in 1906. As one of the earliest and most widely circulated Pentecostal publications, Word and Witness functioned as a theological clearinghouse for ministers and assemblies seeking guidance during the formative years of the movement. Its treatment of baptism therefore provides an important window into the assumptions that shaped Pentecostal practice prior to the emergence of doctrinal controversy.

      Before 1913, Word and Witness consistently referenced water baptism using language that reflected standard evangelical Protestant norms. Baptism was presented as an expected act of obedience following conversion, closely associated with repentance and public confession of faith, but not as a practice requiring detailed theological defense or clarification. Notably, the publication does not engage questions concerning baptismal wording or formula, nor does it signal awareness of any controversy surrounding the use of Trinitarian language. This absence indicates that baptismal formula remained outside the scope of theological concern during this early period, functioning as a stable and inherited element of Pentecostal life.

 

      The editorial posture of E. N. Bell during these years further reinforces this conclusion. Bell, who would later play a prominent role in resisting the spread of Jesus Name baptism and in shaping institutional responses to the controversy, initially reflected the same inherited assumptions evident throughout early Pentecostal discourse. His pre-1913 editorials exhibit no anxiety regarding baptismal wording, nor do they suggest that baptismal practice required reevaluation in light of restorationist commitments. Instead, Bell’s early writings align with the broader evangelical consensus that viewed Trinitarian baptism as biblically grounded and ecclesiastically normative.

      The significance of Bell’s early silence on baptismal formula cannot be overstated. As a leading Pentecostal voice with extensive editorial influence, Bell’s lack of concern suggests that baptismal practice was widely perceived as settled and unproblematic. The fact that Bell later became deeply involved in the baptismal controversy highlights how profoundly the interpretive landscape shifted after renewed attention was directed toward apostolic baptismal practice in the book of Acts. His subsequent theological engagement did not emerge from a long-standing internal debate, but from a disruptive reorientation of hermeneutical priorities that challenged previously unquestioned assumptions.

      Taken together, the evidence from Word and Witness demonstrates that prior to 1913, early Pentecostalism operated within a largely unexamined consensus regarding water baptism and its Trinitarian formulation. This consensus was rooted not in deliberate doctrinal formulation, but in inherited evangelical tradition and the revivalist focus of the movement. The later emergence of intense disagreement therefore represents not the continuation of an existing dispute, but a decisive rupture precipitated by a new interpretive focus on apostolic precedent. Recognizing this continuity is essential for understanding both the suddenness and the severity of the baptismal formula debates that followed.

Baptism within the Azusa Street Revival Context

      The worship culture of the Azusa Street Revival provides an essential framework for understanding the relative absence of baptismal controversy in early Pentecostalism. Azusa was characterized by spontaneous and participatory worship, extended prayer meetings, public testimonies, interracial fellowship, and an intense expectation of divine encounter. Services operated with minimal formal structure and were shaped by what participants perceived as the immediate direction of the Holy Spirit. This environment cultivated a theological ethos in which lived experience functioned as a primary means of discernment and validation, often preceding doctrinal articulation.

      Cecil M. Robeck Jr. emphasizes that theological reflection at Azusa was “largely experiential and doxological rather than systematic,” noting that worship itself became the primary context in which theological meaning was formed[8] (Robeck 134–36). Doctrine emerged organically from praise, testimony, and prayer rather than from deliberate theological construction. Participants interpreted spiritual phenomena as evidence that God was restoring the power and practices of the apostolic church, reinforcing confidence in the authenticity of their experience without necessitating immediate doctrinal codification.

      Other scholars of the Azusa Street Revival have likewise observed that early Pentecostal theology was shaped by narrative and testimony rather than by confessional precision. Allan Anderson notes that Azusa participants understood themselves as “living within the continuation of the Acts narrative,” which encouraged imitation of apostolic experience more than reflection on ecclesial form or ritual detail[9] (Anderson 38). This orientation privileged those aspects of Christian life that were perceived as most visibly absent from the contemporary church, particularly Spirit baptism, tongues, healing, and sanctified living.

Within this revivalist environment, water baptism was understood primarily as an act of obedience and submission to Christ rather than as a locus of theological debate. Baptism functioned as a visible marker of repentance and conversion, but it did not serve as a defining feature of Pentecostal distinctiveness. Robeck observes that early Pentecostals assumed baptism to be biblically grounded and ecclesiastically settled, which allowed them to devote their interpretive energy to experiences they believed had been neglected or suppressed by traditional Christianity[10] (Robeck 121–23).

      The emphasis on Spirit baptism as empowerment for mission further eclipsed concerns related to ritual form. Pentecostals viewed Spirit baptism as the essential restoration necessary for effective witness and global evangelization, especially in light of their strong eschatological expectations. In this context, water baptism retained its inherited evangelical shape because it was not perceived as an area in which the church had departed from apostolic obedience. As long as baptism was practiced as an expression of faith and repentance, its formula remained largely unexamined.

 

      Consequently, water baptism remained a stable and uncontested practice during the earliest phase of Pentecostalism, embedded within the theological assumptions carried over from evangelical Protestantism. The absence of debate at Azusa does not reflect theological negligence, but rather a prioritization shaped by revival urgency and restorationist focus. Only when renewed interpretive attention was later directed toward the baptismal narratives of Acts did baptismal formula emerge as a point of theological tension. The worship culture of Azusa, therefore, helps explain why baptismal formula debates did not originate organically within the revival itself, but arose later as Pentecostals began to more critically interrogate the implications of their commitment to apostolic restoration.

Absence of Institutional Adjudication

      Another significant factor contributing to the absence of baptismal controversy before 1913 was the lack of formal ecclesial structures within early Pentecostalism. In its formative years, Pentecostalism existed primarily as a loosely connected network of revival missions, independent congregations, itinerant evangelists, and periodical publications rather than as an organized denomination with centralized authority. This decentralized configuration reflected both the revivalist origins of the movement and its suspicion of formal ecclesiastical control, which was often associated with spiritual decline and resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit.

      Authority in this early phase was exercised relationally and charismatically rather than institutionally. Leaders were recognized based on perceived spiritual anointing, effectiveness in revival ministry, and affirmation by peers rather than through credentialing bodies or doctrinal examinations. Edith L. Blumhofer notes that early Pentecostals “relied heavily on informal networks of trust and shared spiritual experience to sustain unity,” and that doctrinal agreement was often assumed rather than explicitly articulated[11] (Blumhofer 61–62). In such an environment, theological differences could coexist without immediate conflict so long as participants affirmed the central Pentecostal experiences of Spirit baptism and holiness.

      This lack of formal mechanisms for defining and enforcing orthodoxy allowed inherited practices, including Trinitarian water baptism, to persist largely unquestioned. Because baptism was not perceived as a distinguishing Pentecostal doctrine, it did not demand the same level of scrutiny as Spirit baptism or the manifestation of spiritual gifts. Blumhofer further observes that prior to denominational organization, Pentecostal leaders exhibited a general reluctance to codify doctrine, fearing that creeds and formal statements might quench the Spirit or replicate the institutional rigidity they associated with mainline denominations[12] (Blumhofer 58–60).

      Other scholars have similarly emphasized the provisional and anti-institutional ethos of early Pentecostalism. Grant Wacker describes the movement’s early years as characterized by “organizational minimalism,” in which structures were tolerated only insofar as they served the immediate needs of revival and mission[13] (Wacker 9–11). This resistance to institutionalization delayed the emergence of doctrinal boundary markers and allowed theological assumptions to remain implicit rather than contested. Douglas Jacobsen likewise notes that early Pentecostals prioritized experiential unity over doctrinal uniformity, creating a context in which diversity of belief could persist beneath the surface of revival enthusiasm[14] (Jacobsen 72–74).

      Within this fluid ecclesial environment, doctrinal reevaluation tended to focus on areas perceived as essential to Pentecostal distinctiveness and eschatological urgency. Spirit baptism, sanctification, and divine healing were actively reformulated because they were central to Pentecostal identity and mission. Water baptism, however, was widely regarded as an area in which the broader Christian tradition had remained faithful to biblical instruction. As long as baptism functioned as an act of obedience rather than as a defining theological boundary, its inherited Trinitarian form remained unchallenged.

      Only when renewed interpretive attention to apostolic precedent disrupted this assumed continuity did the lack of formal ecclesial structures become a liability. Once baptismal formula emerged as a test of doctrinal fidelity, early Pentecostalism lacked agreed-upon mechanisms for resolving the dispute. This vacuum of authority hastened the move toward institutional solutions, including doctrinal statements, credentialing processes, and denominational formation. Thus, the same ecclesial fluidity that initially enabled unity and rapid expansion also contributed to fragmentation once doctrinal disagreement intensified.

Conclusion

      The cumulative evidence drawn from early Pentecostal publications and their broader historical context demonstrates that baptismal formula was not initially a point of controversy within early Pentecostalism. Influenced by nineteenth-century evangelical and Wesleyan Holiness traditions, early Pentecostals practiced water baptism using Trinitarian language as an inherited and largely unquestioned norm. Baptism was understood primarily as an act of obedience, repentance, and public identification with Christ, rather than as a theological locus requiring careful doctrinal formulation[15] (Blumhofer 44–45; Jacobsen 71–73). As a result, the wording of the baptismal formula itself did not initially function as a marker of theological identity or ecclesial allegiance.

      Primary sources such as The Apostolic Faith and Word and Witness consistently reflect this continuity. Their treatment of baptism reveals an assumed consensus rather than a contested practice. While these publications frequently addressed disputed issues related to sanctification, Spirit baptism, spiritual gifts, and accusations of fanaticism, they did not engage baptismal formula as a subject of debate[16] (The Apostolic Faith; Word and Witness). This absence is not incidental, but indicative of a shared ecclesial inheritance in which Trinitarian baptismal language was widely accepted across evangelical Protestantism and therefore did not invite scrutiny within the Pentecostal movement’s early years[17] (Robeck 121–23).

      Establishing this pre-1913 baseline is essential for understanding the nature and intensity of the baptismal formula debates that later emerged. The controversy did not arise from a gradual evolution of thought or from a long-standing theological disagreement within Pentecostalism. Instead, it resulted from a sudden and forceful reexamination of apostolic precedent, catalyzed by renewed attention to the book of Acts within a movement deeply committed to restorationist ideals[18] (Land 21–24; Dayton 23–25). Once Pentecostals began to interrogate whether inherited baptismal practice fully aligned with apostolic example, an assumed consensus was rapidly destabilized.

      This shift transformed baptism from a settled act of obedience into a contested site of interpretive authority. What had previously functioned as a shared ritual practice became a theological boundary marker capable of distinguishing orthodoxy from error and determining fellowship, ministerial recognition, and institutional affiliation[19] (Blumhofer 58–62; Wacker 9–11). The speed and severity with which the controversy unfolded can only be understood against the backdrop of its prior absence.

      By establishing the theological, ecclesial, and experiential context of pre-1913 Pentecostal baptismal practice, this chapter provides the necessary foundation for examining the crisis that followed. The next chapter will explore how renewed attention to Scripture, particularly the baptismal narratives of Acts, disrupted inherited assumptions and precipitated one of the most consequential doctrinal debates in Pentecostal history, reshaping the movement’s theology, authority structures, and institutional trajectory[20] (Robeck 134–36; Jacobsen 78–80).
Chapter Three: The 1913 Turning Point and the Emergence of the Debate

Introduction

      The years 1913 to 1916 represent a decisive transition in early Pentecostal history, not merely because a new baptismal formulation gained visibility, but because the movement’s previously fluid assumptions regarding authority, interpretation, and fellowship were compelled into open and sustained public contestation. Prior to this period, early Pentecostal literature reveals broad continuity with inherited evangelical and Wesleyan Holiness baptismal patterns, including the assumed use of Trinitarian language and the absence of sustained debate concerning baptismal formula[21] (Word and Witness; The Apostolic Faith). Baptism functioned as a settled act of obedience rather than as a site of doctrinal definition, allowing Pentecostals to focus their theological energy on experiences perceived as most urgently in need of restoration, particularly Spirit baptism and the manifestation of spiritual gifts.

      After 1913, however, this assumed consensus was rapidly destabilized. Renewed attention to the baptismal narratives of the book of Acts catalyzed a significant reorientation in how many Pentecostals understood apostolic practice and its normative authority for the contemporary church. The repeated references in Acts to baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” began to be interpreted not as incidental narrative detail, but as evidence of a binding apostolic pattern. Within a movement deeply shaped by restorationist logic, such an interpretive shift carried profound implications. If Pentecostals were committed to restoring apostolic Christianity, then apostolic practice could no longer be treated as merely descriptive; it demanded evaluation as potentially prescriptive[22] (Bernard 17).

      This reorientation transformed baptismal formula from an inherited convention into a theological problem that required resolution. What had previously been an unexamined ritual practice now became a test of biblical fidelity and apostolic alignment. As a result, the controversy extended beyond questions of wording to encompass deeper disagreements concerning hermeneutical priority, specifically the relationship between dominical command and apostolic precedent, and the authority of narrative Scripture within Pentecostal theology. These disagreements could not be resolved informally because they struck at the heart of how Scripture itself was to be read and applied within a Spirit-led movement.

      This chapter traces the origins and spread of the Jesus Name baptismal position, focusing first on the emergence of the claim that Christian baptism should be administered explicitly “in the name of Jesus Christ,” and then on how this claim moved from revival teaching into a boundary-defining doctrinal position. Individual attention is given to how this teaching circulated through revival networks, publications, and ministerial relationships, and how it was framed not merely as an alternative practice but as a restoration of apostolic obedience[23] (Bernard 23). The chapter also examines how the adoption of Jesus Name baptism often entailed re-baptism and public realignment, thereby transforming theological conviction into visible ecclesial division.

 

      At the same time, the chapter highlights the movement’s initial resistance and confusion, especially as reflected in Word and Witness. Editorial responses and correspondence preserved in this periodical reveal that Pentecostal leaders quickly recognized the disruptive potential of the new teaching, even as they struggled to assess its biblical legitimacy and ecclesial implications[24] (Word and Witness). The controversy forced leaders to confront questions that early Pentecostalism had previously avoided: Who has the authority to define orthodoxy? How should Scripture adjudicate disputes when restorationist commitments produce competing conclusions? What mechanisms can preserve unity without suppressing sincere theological conviction?

      These questions became increasingly urgent as Pentecostals moved toward formal denominational structures. As Edith L. Blumhofer demonstrates, concerns over doctrinal coherence, ministerial credentialing, and organizational unity intensified during this period, and baptismal formula became one of the most visible markers by which emerging institutions attempted to define boundaries[25]  (Blumhofer 58). In this context, baptismal practice ceased to function as assumed ritual continuity and instead became a doctrinal boundary marker central to fellowship,  and the Trinity).

      By situating the baptismal controversy within this broader transition from revivalist fluidity to institutional consolidation, this chapter identifies the precise moment when early Pentecostalism was forced to negotiate the relationship between restorationist theology and ecclesial order. The debates that unfolded between 1913 and 1916 thus represent not only a dispute over baptismal formula, but a critical episode in the formation of Pentecostal identity, authority, and denominational structure.

The Precipitating Context: Restorationism, Acts, and the Logic of Apostolic Pattern

      The 1913 controversy cannot be understood apart from early Pentecostalism’s restorationist ethos, particularly its belief that the book of Acts was not merely descriptive history but a Spirit-inspired pattern for church life. Early Pentecostals commonly read Acts with an expectation of continuity between apostolic experience and contemporary revival experience. This expectation shaped the movement’s openness to the claim that the church must recover not only apostolic power but also apostolic practice. When new interpretive attention was directed toward the baptismal accounts in Acts, it was therefore plausible, within Pentecostal logic, to argue that the apostolic baptismal pattern should be binding upon the contemporary church[26] (Bernard 51).

      Within this restorationist framework, the question of baptismal formula quickly became more than a liturgical preference. It became a test case for a deeper hermeneutical issue: whether a repeated apostolic practice in Acts should be treated as the authoritative application of Jesus’ command and thus normative for all subsequent Christian practice. Once this claim entered Pentecostal discourse, it created a logical dilemma. If Pentecostals affirmed that apostolic practice was a reliable pattern for restoration, then baptismal formula could no longer be treated as an inherited convention. It required an explicit interpretive decision, and that decision inevitably raised questions of authority, legitimacy, and obedience[27] (Bernard 79; Word and Witness).

The 1913 Turning Point: The Emergence of Jesus Name Baptism Teaching

      A major catalyst in 1913 was the emergence and dissemination of teaching that Christian baptism should be performed explicitly “in the name of Jesus Christ.” The internal chronology of this development, including its key leaders and dissemination channels, is documented in Oneness Pentecostal historical accounts, which emphasize that the recovery of Jesus Name baptism was associated with revival preaching, interpretive claims regarding Acts, and testimonies of spiritual confirmation[28] (Bernard 78). In this account, the claim was not presented primarily as a pragmatic revision but as a restoration of apostolic obedience.

      Frank J. Ewart emerges as a central figure in this development. In the earliest stages of the controversy, Ewart’s influence lay not merely in advocating a different baptismal wording, but in presenting the issue as a matter of biblical fidelity and apostolic alignment. His teaching framed Jesus Name baptism as the consistent apostolic practice reflected in Acts and therefore as the authoritative implementation of Christ’s command. In this way, the baptismal claim was offered not as an optional preference but as a restoration imperative that demanded a response[29] (Ewart; Bernard ).

      This emphasis is crucial. Ewart’s argumentation, as preserved in his writings and summarized in Oneness historical treatments, frequently draws on the repeated Acts pattern of baptizing “in the name of Jesus Christ” and interprets this repetition as a deliberate apostolic norm rather than a narrative accident (Ewart; Bernard 13). Within early Pentecostalism’s restorationist assumptions, such a claim carried significant persuasive power. If Acts were truly the template for Spirit-filled church life, then apostolic baptismal practice could be construed as binding.

Frank J. Ewart as a Primary Voice: Theological and Experiential Justification

      Ewart’s significance for the baptismal controversy is best understood in terms of how he fused theological argument with experiential validation, two features that often functioned together in early Pentecostal persuasion. Theological justification centered on the claim that Acts provided a consistent apostolic pattern for baptism, and that this pattern should govern contemporary practice. Experiential justification involved testimonies and revival narratives that interpreted spiritual outcomes, such as renewed power, assurance, or unity, as evidence that the restored practice carried divine approval[30] (Ewart; Bernard).

      This combination of arguments mattered because early Pentecostalism routinely treated spiritual experience as a confirmation of biblical truth claims, particularly when those claims were framed as restoration of apostolic precedent. In that environment, to present Jesus Name baptism as both biblically grounded and spiritually validated was to place the issue within the movement’s most persuasive categories. As the teaching spread, it did so not merely as a new idea but as an obedience-driven call to align the church with apostolic pattern (Ewart; Bernard, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity).

      Ewart’s role also helps explain the controversy’s intensity. When a practice is framed as a simple variation, the movement can tolerate diversity. When it is framed as an apostolic mandate, the issue becomes a matter of obedience and legitimacy. The question then shifts from “Which wording do you prefer?” to “Are you aligned with apostolic Christianity?” That shift is precisely what enabled baptismal formula to become a boundary marker rather than a minor ritual detail[31] (Ewart; Word and Witness).

Mechanisms of Spread: Publications, Revival Networks, and Ministerial Re-baptism

      The spread of Jesus Name baptism teaching within early Pentecostalism was significantly accelerated by the movement’s existing communication and relational infrastructure. From its inception, Pentecostalism functioned as a trans local revival network rather than as a collection of isolated congregations. Itinerant evangelists traveled widely, camp meetings served as regional hubs of theological exchange, and periodicals circulated revival reports, testimonies, and doctrinal reflections across denominational and geographic boundaries. This interconnected environment enabled new teachings to disseminate rapidly, especially when they were framed as restorations of apostolic practice rather than as novel innovations.

      Once baptismal formula emerged as a contested interpretive issue, this infrastructure allowed ministers and assemblies to adopt the Jesus Name practice with relative immediacy. Unlike more abstract doctrinal shifts, baptism involved a visible and actionable rite that could be implemented without delay. A minister persuaded of the apostolic legitimacy of Jesus Name baptism could apply the practice directly in local congregational settings, thereby translating theological conviction into concrete ecclesial action. This immediacy intensified the controversy, as adoption was not merely theoretical but publicly observable, often forcing congregations and fellow ministers to respond.

      One especially important mechanism in the spread of Jesus Name baptism was the phenomenon of ministerial re-baptism and re-baptism advocacy. In renewal movements shaped by restorationist logic, public acts of re-baptism carry powerful symbolic and theological weight. Such acts signal a conviction that prior practice was deficient, incomplete, or misaligned with apostolic precedent. In the Pentecostal context, re-baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” functioned as both a theological declaration and a performative act, publicly aligning the minister with a specific interpretation of Scripture.

      Oneness historical accounts emphasize that re-baptism was not merely incidental but definitional in the spread of the teaching. David K. Bernard notes that acceptance of Jesus Name baptism often involved the conviction that baptism administered under Trinitarian language lacked full apostolic compliance, necessitating corrective obedience through re-baptism[32] (Bernard 98). This insistence transformed interpretive assent into ecclesial realignment, as ministers who submitted to re-baptism effectively redefined their theological and ministerial identity.

      The rhetorical and communal force of ministerial re-baptism also created practical pressure on affiliated congregations. When respected leaders underwent re-baptism, congregants were implicitly confronted with the question of whether their own baptism was sufficient and whether continued fellowship with ministers who rejected the practice constituted disobedience. In this way, re-baptism functioned as a catalyst for broader congregational realignment, extending the controversy beyond individual conviction to communal practice and identity.

      Because baptism was closely connected to questions of ministerial legitimacy, fellowship, and authority, adoption of Jesus Name baptism quickly produced relational consequences. Ministers who embraced the teaching often gravitated toward one another, forming new networks of mutual recognition grounded in shared interpretive commitments. These emerging networks facilitated cooperation, pulpit exchange, and collective identity formation, reinforcing the sense that Jesus Name baptism marked authentic apostolic alignment. Conversely, ministers and leaders who resisted the teaching increasingly perceived it as a threat to unity, doctrinal stability, and inherited ecclesial continuity.

      Evidence of this tension appears not only in Oneness historical narratives but also in contemporary Pentecostal periodicals. Word and Witness documents the growing anxiety among leaders who recognized that baptismal formula had become a fault line capable of fragmenting the movement. Editorial responses reveal concern that the controversy was dividing ministers, disrupting fellowship, and undermining shared revival identity[33] (Word and Witness). These reactions confirm that the spread of Jesus Name baptism was not merely geographical, expanding from one region to another, but structural, reshaping relationships, alliances, and institutional trajectories within Pentecostalism.

      Thus, the diffusion of Jesus Name baptism teaching illustrates how doctrinal disputes in revival movements can reconfigure ecclesial networks. Once baptismal practice became linked to apostolic fidelity and ministerial legitimacy, adoption or rejection of the teaching carried consequences that extended far beyond local ritual variation. The controversy reorganized Pentecostalism along new theological and relational lines, contributing directly to the formation of distinct Pentecostal streams and accelerating the movement’s transition from revivalist fluidity to institutional boundary definition[34] (Bernard; Word and Witness).

Initial Resistance and Confusion in Word and Witness

      While Oneness accounts emphasize the positive restoration of apostolic practice, early Pentecostal periodical evidence also preserves the movement’s immediate confusion, resistance, and concern, particularly within leadership networks seeking to preserve unity. Word and Witness, edited by E. N. Bell, is a critical source for documenting this early resistance. Because the publication served as a major Pentecostal communication channel, its editorial reactions provide insight into how leaders perceived the controversy as it emerged and how they framed the stakes for the broader movement[35] (Word and Witness).

      The significance of Word and Witness is twofold. First, it demonstrates that the controversy was recognized quickly as more than a preference. Editorial responses indicate that leaders perceived baptismal formula teaching as potentially divisive and as a destabilizing reinterpretation of established practice. Second, the publication evidences the early stage of the debate, when leaders were still attempting to interpret what was happening, assess its biblical basis, and determine whether it threatened fellowship (Word and Witness).

      Bell’s later prominence in institutional contexts heightens the importance of his early editorial posture. The fact that the editor of a major Pentecostal paper had previously reflected inherited assumptions about baptism, and then became a leading voice reacting against the new teaching, illustrates how the controversy forced Pentecostalism to move from assumed consensus to explicit doctrinal boundary negotiation[36] (Word and Witness; Blumhofer).

Institutional Reaction and Leadership Concerns: The Movement Toward Boundary Definition

      The baptismal controversy also contributed directly to early Pentecostal institutional development because it made the absence of formal doctrinal adjudication increasingly untenable. When a movement relies primarily on charismatic authority and relational networks, unity can persist as long as interpretive conflicts remain secondary. When a practice becomes a litmus test for apostolic fidelity, however, leaders must either develop mechanisms for boundary-setting or accept fragmentation as the cost of diversity.

      Edith L. Blumhofer’s denominational history demonstrates how leadership concerns about unity, ministerial credentials, and doctrinal identity intensified as the movement moved toward formal organization[37] (Blumhofer) In such a context, baptismal formula was no longer merely a pastoral matter. It became a question of what the emerging movement would recognize as orthodox practice, which ministers would be credentialed, and what doctrinal statement could maintain fellowship amid rising conflict (Blumhofer, The Assemblies of God).

 

      This is the pivotal interpretive shift: baptismal practice became a boundary marker because it was increasingly linked to authority claims. Those advocating Jesus Name baptism appealed to apostolic precedent as normative. Those resisting it appealed to established interpretation and to the perceived necessity of preserving unity through doctrinal stability. Once both sides framed the issue as a matter of fidelity, compromise became difficult, and organizational realignment became more likely (Blumhofer; Bernard; Word and Witness).

Conclusion: The Moment Baptism Became a Boundary Marker

      The developments that unfolded after 1913 mark the precise moment when baptismal practice within Pentecostalism moved from assumed ritual continuity to explicit doctrinal boundary definition. Prior to this period, water baptism functioned as a shared act of obedience inherited from evangelical and Holiness traditions. Following renewed attention to apostolic precedent in Acts, however, baptism became a contested site of interpretive authority. Through Frank J. Ewart’s leadership and the persuasive fusion of Acts-based argumentation with experiential validation, Jesus Name baptism spread rapidly through revival networks and ministerial circles[38] (Ewart; Bernard). By framing the practice as both biblically mandated and spiritually confirmed, advocates positioned Jesus Name baptism not as a permissible alternative, but as a restoration imperative that demanded compliance.

      At the same time, Word and Witness documents the movement’s early resistance to this reinterpretation and the growing recognition among Pentecostal leaders that the controversy threatened unity and required a coordinated response (Word and Witness). Editorial reactions reveal anxiety over the divisive potential of the teaching and an awareness that inherited assumptions about baptism could no longer be left unexamined. The controversy forced Pentecostal leaders to confront the limitations of revivalist cohesion and exposed the vulnerability of a movement that lacked formal mechanisms for doctrinal adjudication.

      As denominational structures began to consolidate in response to expanding networks and theological diversity, leadership concerns regarding doctrinal coherence, ministerial credentialing, and institutional legitimacy intensified. Edith L. Blumhofer demonstrates that emerging Pentecostal organizations increasingly viewed baptismal formula as a litmus test for orthodoxy and ministerial recognition, precisely because it had become a visible marker of theological allegiance[39] (Blumhofer). In this context, baptismal practice was no longer a secondary ritual matter, but a defining boundary that shaped fellowship, authority, and organizational alignment.

      In this way, the baptismal formula controversy functioned as a catalyst for Pentecostal fragmentation, not merely because it introduced a new theological position, but because it forced the movement to answer questions it had previously been able to avoid. Pentecostals were compelled to decide which biblical texts should govern practice when apostolic precedent appeared to conflict with inherited tradition. They were required to determine who possessed the authority to define orthodoxy within a revival movement that prized both Scripture and Spirit-led experience. They also had to confront how unity could be preserved without extinguishing theological conviction or suppressing perceived divine revelation.

      These questions, brought into sharp focus after 1913, explain why baptismal practice assumed a significance far greater than that of a rite of initiation. Once baptism became linked to apostolic fidelity, ministerial legitimacy, and institutional belonging, it could no longer remain a neutral practice. Instead, it became a doctrinal boundary marker that reshaped Pentecostal identity and organizational trajectory. The controversy accelerated the movement’s transition from revivalist fluidity to denominational definition, leaving a lasting imprint on Pentecostal theology, ecclesiology, and patterns of fellowship that continue to shape the movement in subsequent generations.
Chapter Four: Competing Scriptural Arguments

Introduction

      The baptismal formula controversy within early Pentecostalism cannot be adequately explained as a disagreement over ritual wording or liturgical preference. At its core, the debate represented a profound hermeneutical conflict concerning how Scripture should be read, prioritized, and applied within a restorationist and Spirit-led movement. Both sides affirmed the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and neither questioned Scripture’s normative role in Christian faith and practice. The conflict instead arose from fundamentally different assumptions about how biblical authority operates, which texts should be treated as determinative, and how various genres of Scripture should function in shaping doctrine and practice.

      Early Pentecostalism was united by a shared conviction that God was restoring apostolic Christianity through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This restorationist impulse intensified the importance of Scripture, especially the book of Acts, which was widely regarded not merely as historical narrative but as a Spirit-inspired model for contemporary Christian life. Yet the movement lacked a uniform hermeneutical method for determining how apostolic precedent should be applied. As a result, competing interpretive frameworks emerged when Pentecostals were forced to decide whether explicit dominical commands, apostolic actions, or narrative patterns should govern baptismal practice.

      Proponents of Jesus Name baptism and defenders of Trinitarian baptism thus approached the same biblical texts with different interpretive priorities. Advocates of Jesus Name baptism emphasized the repeated baptismal accounts in Acts as evidence of a normative apostolic pattern. They argued that the apostles’ actions represented the authoritative application of Jesus’ teaching and therefore carried binding force for the church. Defenders of Trinitarian baptism, by contrast, prioritized the explicit dominical command of Matthew 28:19 and treated the Acts narratives as descriptive accounts that did not necessarily prescribe liturgical form. These divergent approaches reflected deeper disagreements over the relative authority of command versus precedent, didactic instruction versus narrative description, and explicit wording versus implied theological meaning.

      The controversy therefore exposed unresolved tensions within Pentecostal hermeneutics. On the one hand, Pentecostals valued narrative Scripture as paradigmatic for experience and practice, particularly in matters related to Spirit baptism and charismatic gifts. On the other hand, they also inherited evangelical interpretive instincts that privileged explicit commands and propositional teaching. When these impulses converged on the issue of baptismal formula, the absence of a shared interpretive hierarchy made conflict unavoidable. The debate was not simply about which formula was correct, but about how Scripture itself should function authoritatively within a movement committed to both biblical fidelity and Spirit-led experience.

      This chapter analyzes the competing scriptural arguments advanced by proponents of Jesus Name baptism and defenders of Trinitarian baptism in order to illuminate the hermeneutical foundations of the controversy. Drawing on primary sources such as tracts and sermons by Frank J. Ewart and articles published in the Pentecostal Evangel, the chapter examines how each side selected, interpreted, and prioritized biblical texts to legitimate its position. These sources reveal not only the content of the arguments, but also the interpretive assumptions that shaped them, including views of apostolic authority, narrative normativity, and doctrinal development.

      Secondary scholarship on Pentecostal hermeneutics and early Christian baptism provides essential interpretive context and historical comparison. Studies of Pentecostal interpretive practice clarify why Acts carried such weight within the movement, while research on baptism in the early church highlights the complexity of appealing to apostolic precedent as a uniform standard. By bringing these perspectives into conversation with early Pentecostal sources, the chapter situates the baptismal controversy within broader theological and historical debates about Scripture, authority, and ecclesial continuity.

      Ultimately, this chapter demonstrates that the baptismal formula controversy was fundamentally a struggle over interpretive authority rather than a narrow dispute over ritual form. The inability to reconcile competing hermeneutical priorities shaped not only baptismal practice but also Pentecostal doctrine, patterns of fellowship, and institutional development. By exposing how Scripture was read and deployed on both sides of the debate, the chapter reveals why the controversy proved so divisive and why it necessitated the institutional responses examined in the chapters that follow.

Apostolic Precedent and Narrative Normativity: The Jesus Name Argument

      Proponents of Jesus Name baptism grounded their position primarily in the baptismal narratives of the book of Acts. Passages such as Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, and Acts 19:5 were cited repeatedly as evidence that the apostles baptized converts explicitly “in the name of Jesus Christ.” For advocates of this position, the consistency of this pattern was neither accidental nor culturally conditioned; it was interpreted as a deliberate apostolic application of Jesus’ command and therefore binding upon the contemporary church.

      Frank J. Ewart’s tracts and sermons reflect this hermeneutical approach with remarkable clarity. Ewart argued that the apostles, having received direct instruction from Christ and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, provided the authoritative model for Christian practice. He maintained that “the apostles never once baptized using titles, but always in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” and concluded that fidelity to apostolic Christianity required imitation of their practice[40] (Ewart 12–14). In this framework, apostolic precedent was not merely illustrative but normative, functioning as the definitive interpretation of Jesus’ teaching.

      This appeal to narrative normativity aligns with what French L. Arrington describes as a characteristic Pentecostal hermeneutic, in which biblical narratives are read as paradigmatic for contemporary Christian experience and practice rather than as purely descriptive accounts of the early church[41] (Arrington 41–43). For early Pentecostals, the book of Acts was not simply history; it was a Spirit-inspired template for restored Christianity. Consequently, repeated narrative patterns were interpreted as intentional divine instruction.

      Jesus Name advocates further argued that Matthew 28:19 should be interpreted through the lens of apostolic practice rather than in isolation. According to this reasoning, the apostles’ consistent use of Jesus’ name in baptism demonstrated their understanding of the Great Commission and revealed the true meaning of the “name” referenced in the dominical command. Ewart contended that the apostles’ actions provided the authoritative clarification of Jesus’ words, and that to baptize otherwise was to privilege later tradition over inspired precedent[42] (Ewart 18–20).

      This hermeneutical move elevated Acts above Matthew 28:19 in terms of practical authority, not by denying the latter’s inspiration, but by subordinating it to what was perceived as its apostolic interpretation. The strength of this argument within Pentecostalism lay in its coherence with restorationist assumptions and its alignment with experiential validation, as many adherents testified to spiritual affirmation following rebaptism in Jesus’ name.

Dominical Command and Didactic Priority: The Trinitarian Argument

      Defenders of Trinitarian baptism advanced a markedly different hermeneutical approach, prioritizing the explicit dominical command of Matthew 28:19 as the controlling text for baptismal practice. From this perspective, Jesus’ instruction to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” constituted a clear, didactic mandate that could not be overridden by narrative examples. Apostolic practice, while authoritative, was interpreted as subordinate to Christ’s direct command.

      Articles published in the Pentecostal Evangel during the early years of the controversy reflect this interpretive stance. Editors and contributors emphasized that Matthew 28:19 represented the clearest and most direct statement on baptismal formula and that fidelity to Christ required obedience to his explicit instruction[43] (Pentecostal Evangel 6–8). The Acts narratives were understood as abbreviated descriptions of baptism rather than as formal liturgical formulas, and therefore insufficient grounds for altering established practice.

      This approach reflects a more traditional evangelical hermeneutic that distinguishes between didactic passages, which prescribe doctrine and practice, and narrative passages, which describe historical events without necessarily establishing normative patterns. From this perspective, the repeated references to baptism “in the name of Jesus” in Acts were interpreted as theological shorthand emphasizing allegiance to Christ, rather than as prescriptions for baptismal wording.

      Maxwell E. Johnson’s historical analysis of baptismal development supports this distinction, noting that early Christian sources often employed varied baptismal language without intending to establish rigid formulaic uniformity[44] (Johnson 73–76). Trinitarian defenders within Pentecostalism appealed implicitly to this broader historical context, arguing that variation in narrative language did not necessitate doctrinal revision.

      The Trinitarian position also expressed concern that privileging apostolic narrative over Christ’s explicit command undermined the authority of Jesus himself. By treating Matthew 28:19 as the definitive baptismal instruction, these leaders sought to preserve continuity with historic Christian practice and to prevent what they perceived as interpretive excess driven by restorationist enthusiasm.

 

Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Role of Experience

      The sharp divergence between these positions highlights the distinctive features and internal tensions of Pentecostal hermeneutics. As Arrington observes, Pentecostal interpretation has historically emphasized the interplay between Scripture and experience, often allowing lived encounter to shape how biblical texts are read and applied[45] (Arrington 29–32). This dynamic contributed to the persuasive power of the Jesus Name argument, particularly when rebaptism was accompanied by testimonies of spiritual renewal.

      At the same time, the controversy exposed the risks inherent in an experiential hermeneutic when interpretive boundaries are unclear. Both sides appealed to Scripture and Spirit, yet arrived at incompatible conclusions. The debate thus raised fundamental questions about how experience should function in relation to biblical interpretation and whether narrative patterns should be granted prescriptive authority.

      Donald W. Dayton’s analysis of restorationist movements helps explain why these tensions emerged so forcefully. Restorationism, he argues, often generates interpretive conflict because it seeks to recover an idealized apostolic past while lacking consensus on which aspects of that past are normative[46] (Dayton 24–26). In early Pentecostalism, baptism became a focal point for this tension precisely because it lay at the intersection of Scripture, experience, and ecclesial identity.

Narrative Scripture and Normativity

      A central hermeneutical issue underlying the baptismal formula controversy concerns the question of narrative normativity, particularly the function of the book of Acts within Christian theology. Unlike the epistles, which offer explicit doctrinal instruction, Acts presents a theological narrative describing the life of the early church. The challenge lies in determining when narrative description should be treated as normative prescription.

      Pentecostalism has historically granted Acts a paradigmatic role, reading it as a template for contemporary Christian experience. This approach differs from more traditional Reformed hermeneutics, which tend to prioritize didactic texts, and from Catholic sacramental theology, which integrates narrative Scripture within a broader framework of ecclesial tradition. Pentecostal narrative hermeneutics, by contrast, often assume continuity between apostolic experience and present practice.

      The danger exposed by the baptismal controversy is selective normativity, in which certain narrative patterns are elevated as binding while others are treated as incidental. Without clear criteria for determining normativity, interpreters may privilege texts that align with experiential expectations while minimizing others. This dynamic contributed directly to the baptismal debate, as Acts was treated as prescriptive in one context but not consistently across the broader narrative.

      This subsection strengthens the dissertation’s central claim by demonstrating that the controversy was fundamentally about how narrative Scripture should function authoritatively, not merely about baptismal wording.
Apostolic Precedent in Historical Perspective

      Secondary scholarship on early Christian baptism further illuminates the hermeneutical stakes of the Pentecostal debate. Everett Ferguson’s extensive study demonstrates that baptismal practice in the early church exhibited a degree of linguistic and liturgical diversity, even as Trinitarian theology developed over time[47] (Ferguson 857–60). This historical evidence complicates simplistic appeals to apostolic uniformity and raises questions about how narrative evidence should be interpreted normatively.

      Similarly, Johnson notes that baptismal formulas evolved within specific theological and liturgical contexts and that early Christian practice cannot be reduced to a single, static model[48] (Johnson 81–84). While early Pentecostals did not engage this scholarship directly, their debate reflects the same underlying hermeneutical challenge: determining how historical precedent should function in shaping contemporary practice.

Conclusion: A Hermeneutical Conflict with Ecclesial Consequences

      The baptismal formula controversy demonstrates that early Pentecostalism was divided not merely over baptismal wording or ritual practice, but over how Scripture itself should function as an authoritative guide for Christian life. At stake was not the inspiration or authority of the Bible, which both sides affirmed without reservation, but the principles by which biblical texts were to be interpreted, prioritized, and applied within a restorationist and Spirit-led movement. The debate therefore revealed competing visions of biblical authority operating simultaneously within early Pentecostalism.

      Proponents of Jesus Name baptism privileged apostolic precedent and narrative normativity, interpreting the baptismal accounts in Acts as the authoritative and Spirit-inspired application of Christ’s command. Within this framework, apostolic practice was not merely illustrative but prescriptive, functioning as a binding model for contemporary obedience. Acts was read as a paradigmatic text whose repeated patterns disclosed divine intent, particularly when those patterns appeared consistent and unambiguous. This approach cohered naturally with Pentecostal emphases on restoration, continuity with the apostolic church, and experiential confirmation of biblical truth. By interpreting Acts as the church’s normative template, Jesus Name advocates understood their position as a recovery of apostolic Christianity rather than as a departure from biblical fidelity.

      Defenders of Trinitarian baptism, by contrast, prioritized the explicit dominical instruction of Matthew 28:19 and employed a hermeneutic that distinguished between didactic command and narrative description. From this perspective, Christ’s direct teaching carried determinative authority over narrative accounts, which were understood to describe historical practice without necessarily prescribing liturgical form. The Acts narratives were interpreted as theological shorthand emphasizing allegiance to Christ rather than as formal baptismal formulas. This approach reflected inherited evangelical interpretive instincts that emphasized propositional clarity, theological continuity, and caution against deriving normative doctrine solely from narrative patterns.

 

      These competing approaches expose deeper tensions within Pentecostal hermeneutics, particularly regarding the role of spiritual experience, the authority of narrative Scripture, and the relationship between restorationist aspiration and ecclesial continuity. Pentecostals affirmed the experiential dimension of faith and valued the book of Acts as a living witness to Spirit-filled Christianity. Yet they also inherited interpretive frameworks that privileged explicit commands and systematic coherence. When these impulses converged on baptismal practice, the absence of a shared interpretive hierarchy made conflict unavoidable. Each side operated with internally coherent hermeneutics, but those hermeneutics proved mutually incompatible.

      By foregrounding these hermeneutical dynamics, this chapter demonstrates that the baptismal controversy was fundamentally interpretive rather than merely liturgical. The dispute persisted not because of stubbornness or sectarian impulse, but because early Pentecostalism lacked an agreed-upon method for resolving conflicts between narrative precedent and explicit command. The debate thus revealed the limits of a restorationist hermeneutic that valorized apostolic practice without providing clear criteria for determining which elements of that practice were normative.

      The inability to reconcile these interpretive frameworks ultimately necessitated institutional intervention. When hermeneutical disagreement could no longer be contained within revival culture, Pentecostal leaders turned to denominational structures, doctrinal statements, and credentialing processes to impose coherence and preserve unity. These boundary-setting mechanisms did not resolve the hermeneutical tension itself, but they provided practical means of managing its consequences. In doing so, they reshaped Pentecostal identity and authority, setting the stage for the institutional developments examined in the following chapter.

Chapter Five: Authority, Experience, and Institutional Response

Introduction

      The baptismal formula controversy did not unfold in a theological or ecclesial vacuum, but within a movement whose understanding of authority was still fluid, contested, and largely unarticulated. Early Pentecostalism emerged as a revival phenomenon rather than as an established church tradition, and as such it was initially governed by revival culture rather than by institutional order. Authority was conferred primarily through perceived spiritual anointing, compelling testimony, effectiveness in ministry, and claims of divine revelation. In this environment, legitimacy was not grounded in office, credentials, or formal doctrinal alignment, but in the visible manifestation of spiritual power and the affirmation of peers within revival networks.

      This revival-based model of authority proved highly effective in facilitating rapid expansion, fostering innovation, and sustaining spiritual vitality. However, it was inherently fragile when confronted with sustained doctrinal disagreement. As the baptismal formula controversy intensified after 1913, the limitations of informal authority became increasingly apparent. Competing claims to spiritual revelation and apostolic fidelity could not be resolved through testimony alone, especially when opposing parties appealed simultaneously to Scripture, experience, and restorationist logic. Without agreed-upon mechanisms for doctrinal adjudication, unity became difficult to maintain, and fellowship increasingly strained under the weight of incompatible convictions.

      The resulting tension between charismatic authority and institutional authority forced Pentecostal leaders to confront questions they had previously been able to defer. Revival culture had emphasized freedom, spontaneity, and openness to new revelation, but the controversy revealed that such freedom, when unchecked, could generate fragmentation rather than unity. Leaders were compelled to consider whether spiritual experience alone was sufficient to define orthodoxy, or whether institutional structures were necessary to preserve coherence and continuity within a growing movement.

      This chapter examines how authority was asserted, resisted, and ultimately codified during the baptismal formula controversy. It traces how proponents of Jesus Name baptism initially asserted authority through experiential validation and appeals to restored apostolic practice, framing their position as a divinely revealed correction to inherited tradition. At the same time, other Pentecostal leaders resisted this reinterpretation, appealing to inherited doctrinal norms, concerns for unity, and the perceived dangers of unchecked interpretive innovation. These competing claims exposed the absence of a shared authority framework capable of resolving doctrinal disputes without institutional intervention.

      The chapter further argues that while revival culture initially legitimized Jesus Name baptism through testimony, preaching, and perceived spiritual confirmation, the controversy was ultimately resolved through institutional consolidation. Credentialing policies, doctrinal statements, and boundary-setting practices emerged as mechanisms for defining orthodoxy and regulating ministry. In adopting these measures, Pentecostal leaders effectively relocated authority from primarily charismatic recognition to formal ecclesial processes. This shift marked a decisive transition in Pentecostal self-understanding.

      In moving from a Spirit-driven revival network to a structured ecclesial movement, Pentecostalism did not abandon its commitment to spiritual experience or divine empowerment. Rather, it redefined how such experience would be interpreted and governed within the life of the church. Authority became increasingly mediated through institutional frameworks designed to preserve unity, ensure doctrinal coherence, and sustain the movement beyond its initial revival phase. This reconfiguration of authority reshaped Pentecostal theology, governance, and identity, establishing patterns that continue to influence Pentecostal life and leadership in subsequent generations.

Revival Authority and the Primacy of Experience (ca. 1906–1913)

      Early Pentecostal authority was rooted primarily in experience rather than office, anointing rather than appointment, and testimony rather than formal theology. In the revivalist environment of Azusa and its immediate successors, authority was conferred upon those who demonstrated visible evidence of divine favor, particularly Spirit baptism evidenced by glossolalia, effective preaching, and signs of supernatural power. This experiential paradigm shaped how doctrinal claims were evaluated and disseminated.

      Steven J. Land explains that early Pentecostal theology was fundamentally spirituality-driven, formed through worship, testimony, and encounter rather than systematic theological reflection[49] (Land 18–22). Truth claims were often validated by their experiential outcomes rather than by confessional precision. If a teaching appeared to produce spiritual fruit, revival power, or deeper holiness, it was more readily received as divinely sanctioned. This dynamic played a decisive role in the early spread of Jesus Name baptism, which was frequently accompanied by testimonies of spiritual renewal and perceived apostolic alignment.

      Within this framework, authority functioned horizontally rather than hierarchically. Ministers recognized one another through relational networks and shared revival experience rather than through centralized oversight. Donald W. Dayton notes that restorationist movements often resist formal authority structures because they associate institutionalization with spiritual decline[50] (Dayton 23–26). Early Pentecostalism embodied this resistance, operating with minimal concern for doctrinal uniformity so long as experiential unity remained intact.

      This experiential model of authority explains why early challenges to inherited baptismal practice could gain traction without immediate institutional resistance. If rebaptism “in the name of Jesus” was accompanied by spiritual affirmation, early Pentecostals were inclined to interpret such experience as divine confirmation. Revival culture thus enabled the baptismal controversy to emerge organically and spread rapidly, even in the absence of formal theological consensus.

Contesting Authority: Experience Versus Order

      As the baptismal controversy expanded, the revivalist model of authority began to fracture. Competing experiences, rival interpretations of Scripture, and mutually exclusive claims to apostolic fidelity exposed the limitations of experiential validation as a unifying principle. Once baptismal practice became a marker of orthodoxy rather than a shared ritual, experience alone could no longer adjudicate truth claims.

      The Pentecostal Evangel records growing concern among leaders who recognized that competing baptismal practices were undermining fellowship and ministerial recognition. Editorials and reports reveal anxiety that revival enthusiasm was giving way to doctrinal confusion, and that unchecked interpretive freedom threatened the movement’s credibility[51] (Pentecostal Evangel 12–14). The question was no longer whether God was working, but how God’s work should be interpreted and regulated.

      This period reveals a critical shift: authority began to be contested not only between individuals, but between modes of authority. On one side stood experiential claims grounded in testimony and perceived revelation. On the other stood emerging appeals to ecclesial order, biblical coherence, and collective discernment. Land observes that Pentecostal spirituality contained an inherent tension between freedom and order, a tension that became unsustainable once doctrinal disagreement reached institutional significance[52] (Land 34–37).

      The baptismal controversy thus forced Pentecostal leaders to confront a fundamental question: could a movement governed primarily by experience maintain unity when experience itself produced divergent conclusions? The answer, increasingly, was no.

G. T. Haywood and Charismatic-Theological Authority

      The sermons and writings of G. T. Haywood provide a crucial window into how charismatic authority was articulated during this period. Haywood combined experiential validation with sophisticated biblical argumentation, presenting Jesus Name baptism not merely as revival insight but as coherent apostolic theology. His writings reveal an attempt to stabilize charismatic authority by grounding it in Scripture rather than replacing it with institutional control.

      Haywood consistently framed baptism as a matter of obedience to apostolic precedent and submission to divine revelation, arguing that correct practice flowed from correct understanding of God’s self-disclosure[53] (Haywood 45–52). His authority rested not on denominational office but on perceived spiritual insight and exegetical clarity. In this way, Haywood exemplifies the highest form of revival authority, one that sought to preserve experiential vitality while offering theological coherence.

      Yet Haywood’s influence also illustrates the limits of charismatic authority. His teachings, while persuasive to many, were ultimately incompatible with emerging institutional frameworks that required standardized doctrine and credentialing. His marginalization from mainstream Pentecostal structures underscores how institutional consolidation would resolve the controversy differently than revival culture had initiated it.

Institutional Consolidation and Credentialing Authority

      As doctrinal division intensified following the spread of competing baptismal practices, Pentecostal leaders increasingly turned to institutional mechanisms as a means of preserving unity and ensuring the movement’s survival. Revival culture, which had previously sustained cohesion through shared experience and charismatic recognition, proved incapable of adjudicating disputes when those same experiences produced incompatible doctrinal conclusions. In this context, the formation and consolidation of denominational structures became not merely an administrative development, but a theological necessity. Institutional organization provided a framework through which Pentecostals could define orthodoxy, regulate ministry, and establish consistent standards of belief and practice that revival culture alone could no longer maintain.

      Edith L. Blumhofer documents how credentialing processes and formal doctrinal statements emerged as essential tools for stabilizing the movement during this period of crisis. As Pentecostal leaders recognized the centrifugal effects of unchecked interpretive diversity, they increasingly viewed institutional authority as a safeguard against fragmentation[54] (Blumhofer 58-65). Credentialing functioned as a mechanism of discernment, determining who could legitimately represent the movement and under what theological conditions. Doctrinal statements, though often minimal and cautiously framed, served to articulate boundaries of acceptable belief, signaling a decisive shift away from reliance on implicit consensus toward explicit definition.

      The pages of the Pentecostal Evangel provide concrete evidence of how this shift in authority was enacted. Editorials and official notices record explicit decisions regarding baptismal practice and ministerial credentials, demonstrating how institutional authority began to supersede experiential legitimacy. Ministers were required to conform to denominational standards in order to retain credentials and fellowship, and refusal to do so increasingly resulted in exclusion or marginalization[55] (Pentecostal Evangel 18–20). In this way, baptismal formula was transformed from an inherited ritual assumption into a gatekeeping doctrine, one that functioned as a visible and enforceable marker of orthodoxy. Authority was no longer derived primarily from spiritual experience or revival effectiveness, but from alignment with institutionally sanctioned doctrine.

      This transition had profound implications for Pentecostal identity and governance. By subordinating experiential authority to doctrinal compliance, Pentecostal institutions sought to preserve unity and continuity, but in doing so they redefined how the Spirit’s work would be discerned and regulated within the church. Spiritual experience remained valued, but it was increasingly interpreted through the lens of institutional norms rather than serving as an independent source of doctrinal validation. The controversy thus accelerated the movement’s maturation from a fluid revival network into a structured ecclesial body capable of sustaining long-term organizational life.

      Donald W. Dayton’s analysis of restorationist movements helps contextualize this development. He notes that such movements often resist institutionalization in their early stages, associating formal structures with spiritual decline or compromise. However, once doctrinal disputes threaten the movement’s coherence and survival, institutionalization becomes both inevitable and decisive[56] (Dayton 41–44). Pentecostalism followed this pattern closely. The baptismal controversy exposed the limits of revival-based authority and forced leaders to adopt institutional solutions that could enforce doctrinal boundaries and regulate ministry.

      In this sense, the baptismal formula controversy functioned as a catalyst for institutional transformation. What began as a revival-driven interpretive dispute compelled Pentecostalism to formalize its authority structures, reshaping how leadership, doctrine, and fellowship would be governed in the future. The resulting shift did not resolve all tensions between Spirit and structure, but it established a new equilibrium in which institutional authority played a central role in defining Pentecostal orthodoxy. This reconfiguration of authority would have lasting consequences for the movement’s theological development, denominational identity, and patterns of global expansion.

Conclusion: Authority Reconfigured

      The baptismal formula controversy ultimately redefined the nature and operation of authority within Pentecostalism. In its earliest phase, the debate was initiated and sustained by revival culture, which privileged experiential validation, restorationist zeal, and perceived divine revelation as primary indicators of theological legitimacy. Claims regarding Jesus Name baptism were initially advanced not through institutional channels, but through preaching, testimony, and revival networks that interpreted spiritual experience as confirmation of apostolic obedience. Within this framework, authority was fluid, relational, and charismatic, grounded in spiritual anointing rather than formal office.

      However, as the controversy intensified and competing interpretations produced incompatible practices, this revival-based authority structure proved inadequate for sustaining unity. Experiential validation alone could not adjudicate between rival claims when both sides appealed to Scripture, apostolic precedent, and spiritual authenticity. As a result, Pentecostal leaders increasingly turned to institutional consolidation as a means of resolving doctrinal conflict. Doctrinal codification and credentialing enforcement emerged as mechanisms for stabilizing belief, regulating ministry, and preserving organizational coherence. Authority was thereby relocated from primarily experiential recognition to formally articulated ecclesial structures.

      This shift did not signal the abandonment of Pentecostal spirituality, nor did it represent a rejection of the movement’s revivalist origins. Rather, it marked a reorientation of spirituality within institutional frameworks designed to sustain the movement over time. Spiritual experience continued to be valued as essential to Pentecostal identity, but it was increasingly interpreted, regulated, and bounded by doctrinal statements and credentialing processes. In this way, Pentecostalism sought to preserve spiritual vitality while mitigating the centrifugal forces that unchecked interpretive freedom had unleashed.

      By examining how authority was asserted, resisted, and ultimately codified, this chapter demonstrates that the resolution of the baptismal controversy constituted an ecclesiological transformation as much as a theological one. The controversy forced Pentecostalism to clarify how Scripture should function authoritatively within a Spirit-led movement, how experience should be discerned and evaluated, and how institutional structures could coexist with charismatic freedom. These questions were not peripheral; they went to the heart of Pentecostal self-understanding.

      As Pentecostalism emerged from the crisis, it did so with clearer doctrinal boundaries, stronger institutional mechanisms, and a more defined relationship between Spirit, Scripture, and structure. Authority was no longer assumed to arise organically from shared experience alone, but was mediated through recognized ecclesial processes that defined orthodoxy and regulated ministry. This reconfiguration enabled Pentecostalism to expand, endure, and diversify, but it also introduced enduring tensions between revival spontaneity and institutional order.

      Ultimately, the baptismal formula controversy illustrates how renewal movements evolve when confronted with sustained doctrinal disagreement. What began as a revival-driven quest for apostolic restoration became a catalyst for ecclesial maturation. The legacy of this transformation continues to shape Pentecostal theology, governance, and fellowship, offering an enduring case study in how Spirit-led movements negotiate the demands of unity, authority, and faithfulness to Scripture across generations.
Chapter 6

Conclusion and Ministry Implications

Introduction

      This dissertation has examined the baptismal formula debates in early Pentecostalism between 1906 and 1925, advancing the argument that these controversies were fundamentally disputes over interpretive and ecclesial authority rather than mere disagreements over liturgical wording. While the language employed in water baptism served as the visible flashpoint of the conflict, the deeper issues concerned how Scripture was to be interpreted within a restorationist movement, who possessed the authority to define normative Christian practice, and how unity could be maintained in a rapidly expanding revival community. By situating the baptismal controversy within its broader theological, hermeneutical, and institutional context, this study has sought to recover the underlying dynamics that shaped one of the most formative episodes in Pentecostal history.

      Through a detailed historical and theological analysis, the dissertation has traced the development of Pentecostal baptismal practice from assumed continuity to explicit doctrinal boundary. Prior to 1913, early Pentecostals largely inherited evangelical and Holiness assumptions regarding water baptism and its Trinitarian formulation, treating the practice as a settled act of obedience rather than a subject of theological debate. The subsequent reexamination of apostolic precedent, catalyzed by renewed attention to the book of Acts, disrupted this assumed consensus and generated competing interpretive frameworks. These frameworks differed not in their commitment to biblical authority, but in how biblical texts were prioritized and applied, particularly with respect to the relationship between dominical command, apostolic practice, and narrative Scripture.

      The study has further demonstrated how these hermeneutical disagreements intersected with the practical realities of ecclesial life. Appeals to apostolic precedent carried significant persuasive power within a movement committed to restoration, while the lack of formal authority structures initially allowed divergent interpretations to coexist. As the controversy intensified, however, baptismal practice became a boundary marker affecting fellowship, ministerial legitimacy, and organizational alignment. The pressures of institutional consolidation compelled Pentecostal leaders to move beyond revival-based authority toward doctrinal codification and credentialing enforcement, reshaping how authority would function within the movement.

      This concluding chapter synthesizes the major findings of the study and reflects on their significance for contemporary Pentecostal ministry. By examining how early Pentecostal leaders navigated the tension between Spirit-led experience and institutional order, the chapter draws out lessons relevant to present-day concerns regarding unity, authority, and doctrinal formation. In doing so, it underscores the value of historical reflection for ministerial practice, demonstrating that Pentecostal history offers not only a record of past conflict, but also a resource for cultivating theological wisdom and ecclesial discernment in the present.

 

 

 

Synthesis of Major Findings

      The historical analysis undertaken in this study has demonstrated that prior to 1913, early Pentecostalism largely inherited evangelical and Wesleyan Holiness assumptions regarding water baptism. These assumptions included the normative use of Trinitarian language derived from Matthew 28:19 and the absence of sustained theological reflection on baptismal formula as a distinct doctrinal issue. Early Pentecostal publications, sermons, and revival reports reveal continuity rather than disruption, indicating that baptism functioned as an assumed act of obedience rather than as a focal point of restorationist concern. This pre-1913 baseline is critical for interpreting the later controversy, as it establishes that early Pentecostals did not initially perceive baptismal practice as an area in which the church had deviated significantly from apostolic Christianity.

      This historical continuity underscores an important interpretive conclusion. The baptismal formula controversy did not arise from entrenched disagreement, long-standing doctrinal instability, or gradual theological evolution. Instead, it emerged from a sudden reorientation of interpretive attention toward apostolic precedent, particularly the baptismal narratives in the book of Acts. Once these narratives were reread through a restorationist lens that treated apostolic practice as paradigmatic and binding, inherited assumptions were destabilized. What had previously been accepted without scrutiny now demanded explicit justification, and baptismal practice became a site of intense theological reflection.

      The emergence of the Jesus Name baptism position after 1913 marked a decisive turning point in this process. Influenced by restorationist logic and a Pentecostal hermeneutic that elevated Acts as a normative template for church life, proponents argued that apostolic baptismal practice represented the authoritative application of Christ’s command. From this perspective, the consistent pattern of baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” in Acts was interpreted as intentional, normative, and prescriptive. Apostolic action was understood not merely as historical description, but as Spirit-inspired instruction for contemporary obedience.

      Defenders of Trinitarian baptism, however, operated with a different set of hermeneutical priorities. They emphasized the explicit dominical instruction of Matthew 28:19 as the controlling text for baptismal practice and employed an interpretive framework that distinguished between narrative ecclesial practice and normative doctrinal command. From this perspective, the Acts narratives were read as abbreviated or contextual descriptions rather than as formal liturgical prescriptions. Both sides affirmed the authority of Scripture, yet they differed fundamentally on how Scripture should function normatively, particularly when narrative precedent appeared to diverge from explicit command.

      This hermeneutical conflict proved impossible to resolve within revival culture alone. Early Pentecostalism’s reliance on experiential validation, charismatic authority, and informal networks had sustained unity during the movement’s formative years. However, as the baptismal debate intensified, these mechanisms proved inadequate. Competing appeals to Scripture and experience generated incompatible conclusions, and baptismal practice increasingly functioned as a boundary marker affecting fellowship, ministerial legitimacy, and organizational alignment. What had once been a shared ritual of initiation became a test of apostolic fidelity and theological orthodoxy.

 

      The absence of agreed-upon authority mechanisms forced Pentecostal leaders to adopt institutional solutions. Credentialing processes, doctrinal statements, and denominational structures emerged as tools for stabilizing the movement and managing doctrinal diversity. These measures did not resolve the underlying hermeneutical disagreement, but they provided practical means of enforcing boundaries and preserving organizational coherence. In this way, the baptismal controversy accelerated Pentecostalism’s transition from a loosely connected revival network into a structured ecclesial movement, redefining how authority would be exercised and how doctrinal disputes would be adjudicated in the future.

      The study has therefore demonstrated that Pentecostal fragmentation during this period was not simply the result of doctrinal difference, but of unresolved and competing answers to fundamental questions of authority. Who possesses the right to define orthodoxy within a Spirit-led movement? How should Scripture be interpreted when restorationist impulses yield divergent conclusions? What role should spiritual experience play in doctrinal discernment, and how should such experience be evaluated within the community of faith? These questions, forced into the open by the baptismal formula controversy, reshaped Pentecostal theology, ecclesiology, and governance in lasting ways. The legacy of this period continues to inform Pentecostal approaches to doctrine, authority, and unity, making the historical lessons of this controversy especially relevant for contemporary Pentecostal ministry and leadership.

Theological and Ecclesiological Implications

      From a theological perspective, the baptismal formula debates reveal both the strength and the vulnerability of Pentecostal hermeneutics. The movement’s deep commitment to Scripture, its restorationist impulse, and its expectation of ongoing Spirit-led experience together produced a dynamic and vibrant theological environment. Early Pentecostals approached the biblical text with confidence that God continued to act in ways consistent with the apostolic witness, and this expectation fueled remarkable innovation in worship, mission, and spiritual formation. Narrative texts, particularly the book of Acts, were read not merely as historical records but as living testimonies of divine action, capable of shaping contemporary faith and practice.

      At the same time, the baptismal controversy exposes the interpretive risks inherent in this approach when clear criteria for normativity are lacking. When narrative precedent is elevated to prescriptive authority without shared hermeneutical controls, competing interpretations can emerge with equal claims to biblical fidelity and spiritual authenticity. In the baptismal debates, both sides appealed sincerely to Scripture and to the Spirit’s guidance, yet arrived at mutually exclusive conclusions. This outcome demonstrates that biblical fidelity, while essential, does not by itself guarantee interpretive consensus, particularly within movements that integrate experiential validation alongside textual authority. Without agreed-upon principles for adjudicating the relationship between command and precedent, description and prescription, Scripture can become a site of division rather than unity.

      Theologically, the controversy therefore underscores the need for Pentecostalism to articulate more clearly how experience functions in relation to Scripture. Experience can illuminate the text, confirm its relevance, and energize obedience, but it cannot function as an independent or self-authenticating source of doctrinal authority. The baptismal debates reveal how experiential confirmation, when detached from communal discernment and interpretive discipline, can intensify rather than resolve theological conflict. A mature Pentecostal hermeneutic must therefore hold together reverence for narrative Scripture, openness to the Spirit’s work, and humility regarding interpretive fallibility.

      Naturally, the study highlights the inevitability of structure in sustaining renewal movements over time. Early Pentecostalism’s resistance to institutionalization reflected legitimate theological and pastoral concerns. Many early leaders associated formal structures with spiritual stagnation, clericalism, and resistance to the Spirit’s freedom. This suspicion was not unfounded, particularly in light of historical patterns in which renewal movements had lost vitality as they became increasingly bureaucratic or doctrinally rigid. Revival culture’s emphasis on charismatic authority and relational networks initially enabled

Pentecostalism to expand rapidly and to transcend traditional ecclesial boundaries.

      However, the baptismal formula controversy demonstrated that complete reliance on charismatic authority and experiential validation is insufficient for maintaining unity when doctrinal disputes arise. As soon as baptismal practice became a test of orthodoxy and ministerial legitimacy, revival-based mechanisms could no longer contain the conflict. Competing claims to spiritual insight required adjudication, and without institutional processes, the movement faced either unchecked fragmentation or deliberate boundary formation. In this context, institutional authority emerged not as a rejection of spiritual vitality, but as a necessary means of preserving communal coherence and doctrinal stability.

      Importantly, institutional authority did not replace the Spirit’s work within Pentecostalism. Rather, it redefined how that work would be discerned, regulated, and preserved within the life of the church. Doctrinal statements, credentialing processes, and denominational structures functioned as instruments of communal discernment, establishing shared standards by which spiritual claims could be evaluated. While these structures introduced new tensions between freedom and order, they also enabled Pentecostalism to endure beyond its initial revival phase and to develop sustainable patterns of leadership and mission.

      Taken together, the theological and ecclesiological insights derived from the baptismal controversy suggest that renewal movements must learn to integrate Spirit, Scripture, and structure rather than privileging one to the exclusion of the others. Pentecostalism’s early struggles over baptismal formula illustrate that spiritual vitality and institutional order are not inherently opposed, but must be held in creative tension. When this balance is neglected, movements risk either doctrinal instability or spiritual stagnation. When it is pursued intentionally, renewal movements are better equipped to remain faithful to their founding convictions while navigating the complexities of growth, diversity, and doctrinal development.

Ministry Implications for Contemporary Pentecostal Leadership

      The findings of this study offer several important lessons for contemporary Pentecostal leaders.

The Necessity of Hermeneutical Clarity

      Modern Pentecostal ministry continues to affirm two defining convictions: the supreme authority of Scripture and the immediacy of the Spirit’s active presence within the life of the church. While these commitments remain essential to Pentecostal identity, this study demonstrates that they must be accompanied by clear and articulated hermeneutical principles if unity and doctrinal coherence are to be sustained. The baptismal formula controversy illustrates how sincere devotion to Scripture can nevertheless produce conflicting practices when interpretive assumptions remain implicit or underdeveloped.

      Early Pentecostals shared a reverence for the Bible and a restorationist impulse, yet they lacked a common framework for determining how different genres of Scripture should function normatively. Narrative texts, particularly in Acts, were often treated as paradigmatic without clear criteria for distinguishing between descriptive historical practice and prescriptive doctrinal instruction. As a result, competing appeals to Scripture carried equal persuasive weight within revival culture, even when they led to mutually exclusive conclusions.

      Contemporary Pentecostal leaders bear the responsibility of helping congregations and ministers understand how biblical narratives relate to explicit commands and doctrinal teaching. This includes clarifying when narrative patterns may be appropriately imitated, when they must be interpreted in light of broader canonical teaching, and how theological synthesis should occur across different biblical genres. Without such hermeneutical clarity, appeals to Scripture may unintentionally foster division rather than faithfulness. The lesson of the baptismal controversy is that unity requires not only shared reverence for Scripture, but also shared principles for interpreting it.

The Role of Experience in Doctrinal Discernment

      Early Pentecostalism rightly valued spiritual experience as a means of encountering God and confirming the living reality of biblical faith. Experiences such as Spirit baptism, healing, and prophetic utterance played a formative role in shaping Pentecostal theology and mission. The baptismal controversy, however, demonstrates that experience alone cannot function as a self-authenticating source of doctrinal authority.

      During the controversy, both proponents and opponents of Jesus Name baptism appealed to spiritual experience as confirmation of their respective interpretations. Testimonies of spiritual power, renewal, or conviction were cited as evidence of divine approval, yet these experiences did not yield consensus. Instead, they intensified division by reinforcing incompatible conclusions. This outcome reveals the necessity of discerning experience within a broader theological and communal framework.

      Contemporary Pentecostal leaders must therefore cultivate a theology of experience that affirms the Spirit’s work while also recognizing the need for interpretation, testing, and communal discernment. Experience should be welcomed as a gift that enlivens faith and deepens obedience, but it must be evaluated in conversation with Scripture, theological tradition, and the collective wisdom of the church. When experience is isolated from these interpretive contexts, it risks becoming divisive rather than edifying. The baptismal debates serve as a cautionary example of how unexamined experiential validation can undermine unity even within Spirit-filled communities.

Authority as Service Rather Than Control

      The historical movement from revival-based authority to institutional authority within Pentecostalism is often perceived as a loss of spiritual vitality. This study suggests a more constructive interpretation. Rather than representing a retreat from the Spirit’s work, the development of institutional authority can be understood as a reorientation of authority toward ordered service. Structures emerged not to suppress spiritual expression, but to protect unity, regulate ministry, and sustain the movement’s mission over time.

      Early Pentecostal leaders initially resisted institutionalization out of concern that formal structures would quench the Spirit and replicate patterns of ecclesial rigidity they associated with spiritual decline. The baptismal controversy, however, revealed that the absence of structure left the movement vulnerable to fragmentation when doctrinal disputes arose. Credentialing standards, doctrinal statements, and organizational frameworks provided practical means of stewarding authority in service of the community rather than as instruments of coercion.

      For contemporary Pentecostal leadership, this historical lesson underscores the importance of framing authority as pastoral stewardship rather than institutional control. Doctrinal standards and credentialing processes should be communicated as tools that safeguard theological integrity, protect congregations, and enable cooperative mission. When authority is exercised transparently, relationally, and with accountability, it can coexist with spiritual vitality and charismatic expression. The challenge for modern leaders is not to choose between Spirit and structure, but to integrate both in ways that serve the health and witness of the church.

Unity Without Uniformity

      The baptismal formula debates illustrate the danger of allowing secondary theological issues to become absolute boundary markers without careful and sustained theological reflection. While baptism was elevated to a test of orthodoxy during the controversy, the historical analysis reveals that such elevation was not inevitable, but emerged from unresolved questions of authority and interpretation. The resulting fragmentation highlights the need for discernment in distinguishing between core doctrinal commitments and areas where legitimate diversity may exist.

      Contemporary Pentecostal leaders must therefore pursue unity that is rooted in shared faith, mission, and confession of Christ, while allowing for diversity in non-essential matters. This does not imply doctrinal relativism or the absence of boundaries. Rather, it calls for theological maturity in determining which doctrines are essential to Christian identity and which reflect interpretive or contextual variation. The early Pentecostal experience demonstrates that unity grounded solely in experience is fragile, but unity grounded in shared mission and carefully articulated doctrine is more resilient.

      The challenge for modern Pentecostal ministry is to cultivate a culture in which theological disagreement can be addressed constructively without immediately threatening fellowship. This requires humility, patience, and a willingness to engage difficult questions without prematurely absolutizing contested interpretations. The baptismal controversy serves as a reminder that unity without uniformity is not achieved by avoiding doctrine, but by approaching doctrinal formation with pastoral wisdom and historical awareness.

Contemporary Parallels in Pentecostal Ministry

      The baptismal formula controversy provides a valuable diagnostic lens for understanding contemporary Pentecostal conflicts. Modern debates over spiritual gifts, gender and ministry roles, prophetic authority, and apostolic networks frequently replicate the same underlying dynamics: competing appeals to Scripture, divergent interpretations of experience, and unresolved questions of authority.

      In each case, Pentecostal leaders must navigate the tension between openness to the Spirit and the need for doctrinal coherence. The early baptismal debates warn that unresolved interpretive disagreement, when combined with charismatic authority, can quickly escalate into institutional fragmentation. Conversely, heavy-handed institutional responses risk alienating those who experience doctrinal enforcement as spiritual suppression.

      By reading contemporary conflicts through the lens of early Pentecostal history, leaders gain perspective on how theological disagreements function over time. The past does not provide simple solutions, but it offers patterns that can inform wiser pastoral and organizational responses.

Doctrine Formation in Spirit-Led Movements

      One of the most significant theological insights arising from this study concerns the process by which doctrine forms within Spirit-led renewal movements. The baptismal formula controversy illustrates that, in Pentecostalism, doctrinal articulation often followed spiritual experience rather than preceding it. Early Pentecostals did not begin with carefully defined doctrinal systems; instead, they interpreted Scripture through the lens of lived encounter with God, particularly experiences of Spirit baptism, healing, and revival.

      This experience-first dynamic proved to be both a strength and a vulnerability. On the one hand, it enabled Pentecostalism to remain flexible, responsive, and open to new insights drawn from Scripture. On the other hand, it delayed the development of shared interpretive frameworks capable of adjudicating competing doctrinal claims. When new interpretations of baptism emerged that were accompanied by powerful spiritual testimony, the movement lacked agreed-upon mechanisms for determining whether such interpretations represented faithful restoration or interpretive overreach.

      The baptismal controversy also highlights the dual risks of doctrinal ossification and doctrinal instability. Revival movements that resist doctrinal formulation entirely risk fragmentation when disagreements arise. Conversely, movements that codify doctrine prematurely or rigidly risk suppressing the Spirit’s ongoing work. Pentecostalism navigated this tension imperfectly, but instructively, by allowing doctrine to crystallize gradually through conflict, debate, and institutional response.

      As a case study, early Pentecostalism demonstrates that doctrinal formation in Spirit-led movements is rarely linear or purely rational. It is often reactive, shaped by crises that force implicit assumptions into explicit articulation. The baptismal controversy thus reveals how theology is forged not only in classrooms and councils, but in revival meetings, pastoral decisions, and institutional negotiations.

Contemporary Parallels in Pentecostal Ministry

      The baptismal formula controversy provides a valuable diagnostic lens for understanding contemporary Pentecostal conflicts. Modern debates over spiritual gifts, gender and ministry roles, prophetic authority, and apostolic networks frequently replicate the same underlying dynamics: competing appeals to Scripture, divergent interpretations of experience, and unresolved questions of authority.

      In each case, Pentecostal leaders must navigate the tension between openness to the Spirit and the need for doctrinal coherence. The early baptismal debates warn that unresolved interpretive disagreement, when combined with charismatic authority, can quickly escalate into institutional fragmentation. Conversely, heavy-handed institutional responses risk alienating those who experience doctrinal enforcement as spiritual suppression.

      By reading contemporary conflicts through the lens of early Pentecostal history, leaders gain perspective on how theological disagreements function over time. The past does not provide simple solutions, but it offers patterns that can inform wiser pastoral and organizational responses.

Comparative Renewal Movement

      The dynamics observed in early Pentecostalism are not unique to that movement but reflect a recurring pattern evident across the history of Christian renewal. Other Spirit-led movements, including early Methodism, the Holiness movement, and the Charismatic Renewal, similarly struggled with questions of authority in the aftermath of spiritual awakening. In each case, an initial emphasis on religious experience, personal transformation, and freedom from established ecclesial constraints generated vitality and rapid expansion. Yet as these movements matured, the very forces that enabled their growth also exposed underlying tensions regarding governance, doctrinal coherence, and institutional legitimacy.

      Early Methodism offers a particularly instructive parallel. John Wesley’s movement began as a revival within Anglicanism, marked by experiential piety, itinerant preaching, and flexible organizational structures. Authority initially rested in Wesley’s charismatic leadership and the shared experience of conversion and sanctification. Over time, however, disputes over doctrine, discipline, and ministerial authority necessitated more formal structures, including conferences, doctrinal standards, and ordained ministry. What began as a renewal impulse eventually required institutional expression in order to preserve unity and continuity, a trajectory strikingly similar to that of early Pentecostalism.

      The Holiness movement likewise illustrates the tension between experiential theology and ecclesial authority. Emphasizing sanctification as a second work of grace, Holiness leaders often challenged existing denominational frameworks, appealing to spiritual experience as the primary marker of legitimacy. As doctrinal disagreements emerged and competing interpretations of sanctification multiplied, Holiness bodies increasingly adopted organizational structures and confessional statements to regulate teaching and practice. Authority, once grounded largely in testimony and revival effectiveness, became progressively institutionalized.

      The twentieth-century Charismatic Renewal further reinforces this pattern. Initially characterized by informality, ecumenical openness, and emphasis on spiritual gifts, the movement resisted rigid doctrinal boundaries and hierarchical control. Yet as charismatic practices spread across denominational lines, questions of accountability, discernment, and theological consistency became unavoidable. Many charismatic networks developed leadership structures, statements of faith, and oversight mechanisms in response to controversy and fragmentation, echoing earlier renewal trajectories.

      These comparisons reinforce the conclusion that authority disputes are a structural feature of renewal movements rather than accidental deviations. Periods of spiritual awakening tend to privilege experience, spontaneity, and freedom, often postponing formal theological and institutional reflection. When doctrinal disagreement inevitably arises, movements are compelled to clarify authority structures in order to survive. Pentecostalism’s baptismal formula controversy thus reflects a broader pattern in Christian history, not an isolated anomaly.

      By situating early Pentecostalism within this wider historical framework, the dissertation strengthens its analytical claims. The baptismal controversy becomes not merely a denominational dispute, but a case study in how renewal movements transition from charismatic origins to institutional maturity. This perspective underscores the enduring relevance of the study and reinforces its central argument that struggles over authority, interpretation, and structure are intrinsic to the life cycle of Spirit-led renewal movements.

Final Reflections

      The baptismal formula controversy stands as a formative and instructive episode in Pentecostal history, revealing with particular clarity how renewal movements negotiate the enduring tension between Spirit, Scripture, and structure. What initially emerged as a revival-driven effort to recover apostolic Christianity was not simply a dispute over baptismal practice, but a crucible through which Pentecostalism was compelled to mature ecclesiological and theologically. The controversy forced the movement to confront questions it had previously been able to defer, including how Scripture should be interpreted when restorationist impulses yield divergent conclusions, how authority should function within a Spirit-led community, and how institutional structures might serve rather than suppress the work of the Spirit.

      Historically, the baptismal debates demonstrate that renewal movements often begin with a necessary emphasis on experience, spontaneity, and freedom from inherited ecclesial constraints. In Pentecostalism, this revivalist ethos generated extraordinary spiritual vitality, missionary zeal, and theological innovation. Yet the same ethos also revealed its limitations when interpretive disagreement emerged that could not be resolved through testimony or shared experience alone. The baptismal controversy thus became a catalyst for ecclesial maturation, compelling Pentecostal leaders to clarify interpretive norms, formalize authority structures, and articulate doctrinal boundaries capable of sustaining unity beyond the immediacy of revival.

      Importantly, this maturation did not represent a repudiation of Pentecostal spirituality. Rather, it marked a reconfiguration of how spirituality would be discerned and stewarded within the life of the church. The move toward institutional structures reflected an attempt to preserve the fruits of revival while mitigating the centrifugal forces that unregulated interpretive freedom had unleashed. In this sense, the controversy illustrates that structure is not inherently opposed to Spirit, but can function as a vessel through which spiritual vitality is preserved, transmitted, and sustained over time.

      For contemporary Pentecostal ministry, the central lesson of this study is not to retreat from restorationist passion or experiential faith, but to integrate them responsibly within theological and ecclesial frameworks that promote coherence, accountability, and communal stability. The early Pentecostal experience demonstrates that passion without discernment can fracture fellowship, while structure without spiritual vitality can ossify faith. Healthy renewal requires a dynamic integration of all three elements: openness to the Spirit’s work, faithful engagement with Scripture, and institutional forms that serve the life and mission of the church.

      By learning from its own history, Pentecostalism is uniquely positioned to navigate the challenges of a complex and changing world. Historical reflection offers more than retrospective insight; it provides theological wisdom for contemporary leadership. The baptismal formula controversy reminds Pentecostal leaders that doctrinal formation is not merely an academic exercise, but a pastoral responsibility with lasting implications for unity, witness, and mission. As Pentecostalism continues to grow and diversify globally, the lessons of this formative episode encourage a posture of humility, discernment, and intentional stewardship.

      Ultimately, the legacy of the baptismal formula controversy affirms that renewal movements thrive not by avoiding tension between Spirit, Scripture, and structure, but by engaging that tension faithfully. When these elements are held in creative balance, Pentecostalism can remain true to its revivalist origins while cultivating the stability and wisdom necessary for enduring faithfulness.

Why This Still Matters

      The baptismal formula controversy continues to matter because authority questions never disappear; they only change form. Contemporary Pentecostalism faces new theological challenges, but the underlying tension between Spirit, Scripture, and structure remains. Historical awareness enables leaders to engage these tensions with humility rather than reaction.

      Pentecostal history is not merely descriptive but formative. By learning from its own struggles, Pentecostalism can pursue renewal with greater discernment, avoiding both uncritical enthusiasm and institutional rigidity.

Chapter Seven: Limitations of the Study and Areas for Further Research

      While this dissertation has sought to offer a comprehensive historical-theological analysis of the baptismal formula debates in early Pentecostalism, several limitations must be acknowledged. Recognizing these limitations is not a concession of weakness, but an essential aspect of responsible scholarship, clarifying the scope of the study and identifying areas where further research may extend and deepen its findings.

Temporal Limitations

      This study is deliberately limited to the period between 1906 and 1925, encompassing the emergence of Pentecostalism, the outbreak of the baptismal controversy in 1913, and the subsequent phase of institutional consolidation. While this timeframe captures the formative moment in which baptismal practice became a doctrinal boundary marker, it necessarily excludes later theological developments and dialogues that occurred after denominational identities had largely solidified. As a result, this study does not address how baptismal theology evolved within established Oneness or Trinitarian Pentecostal traditions in subsequent decades, nor how later ecumenical or intra-Pentecostal conversations attempted to reassess earlier divisions.

Geographic Limitations

      The study is also geographically limited, focusing primarily on North American Pentecostalism, particularly within the United States. This focus is justified given that the baptismal formula controversy originated within American revival networks and that the most influential primary sources, including early Pentecostal periodicals and denominational records, emerged in this context. However, Pentecostalism rapidly became a global movement, and baptismal practices were received, adapted, and sometimes contested differently in international contexts. The exclusion of global Pentecostal developments means that the study does not account for how baptismal theology functioned in regions where Pentecostalism interacted with different ecclesial traditions, colonial dynamics, and cultural assumptions.

Methodological Limitations

      Methodologically, this dissertation employs a historical-theological approach, integrating historical reconstruction with theological analysis. It does not attempt to offer a systematic or dogmatic adjudication of baptismal formulas, nor does it seek to resolve the theological correctness of competing positions. Instead, the study analyzes how doctrinal positions developed, were justified, and were enforced within a particular historical moment. While this approach is appropriate for examining authority formation and ecclesial dynamics, it necessarily limits the study’s engagement with broader systematic theological debates concerning the Trinity, sacramental theology, or baptismal efficacy.

Source Limitations

      The study relies heavily on published primary sources, including Pentecostal periodicals, sermons, and theological writings of prominent leaders. While these sources provide invaluable insight into public discourse and institutional decision-making, they may not fully capture the perspectives of rank-and-file Pentecostals, local congregations, or marginalized voices within the movement. Private correspondence, unpublished sermons, and congregational records could potentially reveal additional nuances in how baptismal debates were experienced at the grassroots level.

Areas for Further Research

      These limitations point to several promising avenues for future research. One area deserving further study is a comparative analysis of baptismal practices within global Pentecostalism, examining how the baptismal formula controversy was received, modified, or ignored in non-Western contexts. Such research would illuminate how authority, Scripture, and tradition function differently across cultural settings.

      A second area involves post-1930 Oneness–Trinitarian dialogue, particularly how later Pentecostal theologians reflected on early divisions and whether any attempts at reconciliation or mutual understanding emerged. This could provide valuable insight into how doctrinal boundaries evolve over time.

      Finally, comparative research with other renewal movements, such as early Methodism or the Charismatic Movement, could further clarify whether the patterns observed in Pentecostalism reflect broader dynamics inherent to Spirit-led renewal. Such studies would strengthen the argument that authority disputes are a recurring feature of revival movements rather than anomalies unique to Pentecostalism.
Works Cited

 

Anderson, Allan. An Introduction to Pentecostalsim: Global Charasmatic Christianity. Cambridge UP, 2004.

Arrington, French L. . Pentecostal Hermeneutics: An Essay on the Hermeneutical Method of the Pentecostal Movement. CPT Press, 1988.

Bernard, David K. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. 1983.

"Bible Teaching." The Apostolic Faith Septembeer 1906: 3.

Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Gospel Publishing House, 1989.

Dayton, Donald W. Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture. Hendrickson, 1987.

Evangel, Peentecostal. "Pentecostal Evangel." Gospel publishing House 1914-1916.

Faith, Apostolic. 1906-1909.

Jacobson. n.d.

Jr., Cecil M. Robeck. The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement. Thomas Nelson, 2006.

Land, Steven J. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

—. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

McGrath, Alister. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Wilet Blackwell, 2012.

Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. Harvard UP, 2001.

Witness, Word and. 1906-1916.

 

 

 

---

[1] “Bible Teaching.” The Apostolic Faith, Sept. 1906, p. 3.

[2]Land, Steven J. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. 19-22

[3] Dayton, Donald W. Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture. Hendrickson, 1987. 23-25

[4] McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. 7-9

[5] Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Gospel Publishing House, 1989. 44

[6]

[7] Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement. Thomas Nelson, 2006. 123

[8] Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement. Thomas Nelson, 2006. 134-136

[9] Anderson, Allan. An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity. Cambridge UP, 2004. 38

[10]

[11] Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Gospel Publishing House, 1989. 61-62

[12] Ibid, 58-60

[13] Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. Harvard UP, 2001. 9-11

[14] Jacobsen, Douglas. Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Indiana UP, 2003.

[15] Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Gospel Publishing House, 1989. 44-45; Jacobsen, Douglas. Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Indiana UP, 2003. 71-73

[16] The Apostolic Faith. Los Angeles, 1906–1909.; Word and Witness. St. Louis, MO, 1906–1916.

[17] Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement. Thomas Nelson, 2006. 121-123

[18] Land, Steven J. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. 21-24; Dayton, Donald W. Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture. Hendrickson, 1987. 23-25

[19] Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Gospel Publishing House, 1989. 58-62; Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. Harvard UP, 2001. 9-11

[20] Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement. Thomas Nelson, 2006. 134-136; Jacobsen, Douglas. Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement. Indiana UP, 2003. 78-80

[21] Word and Witness. St. Louis, MO, 1906–1916; The Apostolic Faith

[22] Bernard, David K. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Word Aflame Press, 1983. 17

[23] Ibid, 23

[24] Word and Witness, 19066-1916

[25] Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Gospel Publishing House, 1989. 58

[26] Bernard, David K. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Word Aflame Press, 1983. 51

[27] Bernard, David K. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Word Aflame Press, 1983. 79; Word and Witness

[28] Ibid, 78

[29] Ibid; Ewart, Frank J. Selected sermons, tracts, and writings on baptism and Acts-era practice, 1913–1916.

[30] Ibid; Ibid

[31] Ibid; Word and Witness

[32] Bernard, David K. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Word Aflame Press, 1983. 98

[33] Word and Witness

[34] Bernard, David K. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Word Aflame Press, 1983; Word and Witness

[35] Ibid

[36] Word and Witness; Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Gospel Publishing House, 1989.

[37] Ibid

[38] Ewart, Frank J. Selected sermons, tracts, and writings on baptism and Acts-era practice, 1913–1916; Bernard, David K. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Word Aflame Press, 1983.

[39] Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Gospel Publishing House, 1989.

[40] Ewart, Frank J. The Phenomenon of Pentecost. 1913. Reprinted, Pentecostal Publishing House, 1916, pp. 12–20.

[41] Arrington, French L. Pentecostal Hermeneutics: An Essay on the Hermeneutical Method of the Pentecostal Movement. CPT Press, 1988, pp. 29–43.

[42] Ewart, Frank J. The Phenomenon of Pentecost. 1913. Reprinted, Pentecostal Publishing House, 1916, pp. 12–20.

[43] Pentecostal Evangel. Gospel Publishing House, 1914–1916, pp. 6–8.

[44] Johnson, Maxwell E. The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation. Liturgical Press, 2012, pp. 73–84.

[45] Arrington, French L. Pentecostal Hermeneutics: An Essay on the Hermeneutical Method of the Pentecostal Movement. CPT Press, 1988, pp. 29–43.

[46] Dayton, Donald W. Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture. Hendrickson, 1987, pp. 23–26, 41–44.

[47] Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 857–60.

[48] Johnson, Maxwell E. The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation. Liturgical Press, 2012, pp. 73–84.

[49] Land, Steven J. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Sheffield Academic Press, 1993, pp. 18–22, 34–37.

[50] Dayton, Donald W. Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture. Hendrickson, 1987, pp. 23–26, 41–44.

[51] Pentecostal Evangel. Gospel Publishing House, 1914–1918, pp. 12–14, 18–20.

[52] Land, Steven J. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Sheffield Academic Press, 1993, pp. 18–22, 34–37.

[53] Haywood, G. T. The Victim of the Flaming Sword. Pentecostal Publishing House, 1925, pp. 45–52.

[54] Blumhofer, Edith L. The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pentecostalism. Gospel Publishing House, 1989, pp. 58–65.

[55] Pentecostal Evangel. Gospel Publishing House, 1914–1918, pp. 12–14, 18–20.

[56] Dayton, Donald W. Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture. Hendrickson, 1987, pp. 23–26, 41–44.