What Does It Really Mean to be Born-Again?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO REALLY BE BORN-AGAIN?
The term "Born Again" is one of the most used phrases among
present day religious people. Yet, if asked what the term "Born
Again" means, ninety percent of the world's church members could
not give a clear explanation.
The vital importance of this study is shown in that Jesus said,
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"
(John 3:3). Here Jesus is saying that TO BE BORN AGAIN IS TO
BE SAVED. Being born again is the plan of salvation that Jesus
authored at Calvary. It is imperative that we understand what is
required for us to be born again!
All agree that when Jesus went to the cross, he brought in the means
of salvation for everyone who will accept it. But what really
happened at Calvary? What can it do for me? How do I accept what
was done there in my own personal life?!
Let us first consider what really happened at Calvary. There were
three steps to the work of Christ to see that these three steps make
up the act of being born again spoken of by Jesus. To die, to be
buried, and to rise again So we see that Jesus through his death,
burial, and resurrection bought for us the plan of being born again
spoken of in John 3:3, whereby we receive salvation.
The fact that Jesus purchased a plan of salvation for us is the
greatest news the world has ever received. The thing we must
understand is that not only was it necessary for Jesus to do
something, but also it is absolutely essential for us to act upon what
he did. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Ye MUST be born again" (John
3:7).
Now the astonishing thing is that Nicodemus was a religious leader
of his day; yet, he had no conception of what it meant to be born
again! We find that the very same thing is true in the day in which
we live. Many men who fill positions of spiritual leadership in our
world have no real understanding of the "Born Again" experience.
Nicodemus inquired of Jesus in John 3:4, "How can a man be born
when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's
womb, and be born?" Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God." Nicodemus, you can't be born
again of a woman. The second birth is a spiritual birth.
Notice that Jesus said without being born again we cannot see or
enter the kingdom of God. In other words, we cannot be saved. On
the day of Pentecost when Peter preached the first message after
Calvary, the men cried out, "What must we do?" "Then Peter said
unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). Here Peter was giving to them the plan
of salvation repentance,baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
If being born again is to be saved, Peter was evidently talking to
them about being born again.
Remember, there were three steps to Calvary The way to accept
Calvary in our individual life is to accept the death,burial, and
resurrection of Christ.
We don't have to literally die,literally be buried, and literally rise
again. Jesus was our substitute and did this for us. All we must do is
accept what he did by spiritually dying, symbolically being buried,
and spiritually rising again.
We take on his death by repentance which is spiritual death. When a
person truly repents, he dies out to his own will, renounces it
forever, and vows to live from that time on according to the will of
Jesus Christ.
We take on his burial by baptism in water, by immersion into His
name.
Romans 6:4 says, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism".
Baptism MUST be done by immersion; for something cannot be
buried by sprinkling a little dirt on the top of it. That burial after a
few days would certainly prove to be insufficient! Furthermore,
EVERY baptism of which we have Biblical record was
administered by immersion. That alone should determine our course
of action on this matter.
Finally, we partake of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the
infilling of the Holy Ghost. This is the new life that enables us to
live as a Christian should.
We see then that being born again means to spiritually die
symbolically be buried. Thus, in plain language an individual must
repent of his sins, be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ by
immersion, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. IJohn 5:8 tells
us, "And there are three that bear witness in the earth, the Spirit, and
the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." What is the
one thing in which the spirit, water, and blood agree? Is it not the
new birth? Blood covers our sins at repentance; the waters of
baptism wash them away, thus making us clean for the spirit to
come into our lives to dwell. When the Roman soldiers thrust the
spear into Jesus' side after he died, the scripture tells us that there
came forth blood and water (John 19:34). This was for cleansing of
the nations. It takes blood and water to eradicate sin. Blood is the
cleansing agent, and water is the flushing agent. When a jar is
washed for canning, soap AND water are necessary to cleanse that
jar so that it might be filled with good fruit. Likewise, blood and
water are necessary to cleanse the human soul so that it may receive
the spirit of Christ which is the Holy Ghost. This teaching was
verified by Peter when he said, "Repent and be baptized FOR the
REMISSION of SINS" (Acts 2:38). Repentance and baptism are
both absolutely essential for the remission of sins!
Paul taught that the three steps of Calvary was the gospel that we
should preach. In I Corinthians 15:1-4 he tells us, "Moreover,
brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I preached unto
you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which
also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto
you, unless ye have BELIEVED IN VAIN. For I delivered unto you
first of all that which I also received, how that Christ DIED for our
sins according to the scriptures; And that he was BURIED, and that
he ROSE AGAIN the third day according to the scriptures:". Paul
went on the say in II Thessalonians 1:7-8, "And to you who are
troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from
heaven with his mighty angels. In flaming fire taking vengeance on
them that know not God, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of
our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul told us that the gospel is the death,
burial, and resurrection of Christ. How can we OBEY the death,
burial, and resurrection as we have previously explained? Notice
that the Lord Jesus is to appear "in flaming fire taking vengeance on
them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel." It is
absolutely necessary for every human being to obey the gospel by
being BORN AGAIN. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Ye MUST be BORN
AGAIN" (John 3:7).
Old Testament Speaks Of Born Again Plan.
Let us consider another Biblical lesson given to us concerning this
subject.
The Bible teaches us that the things of the Old Testament were
types and shadows of the things to come. When the priests of the
law ministered by offering sacrifices, there were three major steps
to their duties.
First they slew the animal to be offered on the brazen altar. The
blood here was shed and caught in a container for use in the Holy
Place. The flesh of the animal was to be consumed by fire. This
teaches us of the first step of salvation sacrifice, and our sins are
covered by the blood of Jesus.
After the shedding of blood, the priests were ordered to wash at the
laver and to cleanse themselves with water in preparation for
entering the Holy Place. The laver, a round fountain-like structure,
was overlaid in the bottom with a looking glass. When the priests
bent over to wash, he was able to see himself so that he could be
sure that he was clean. When an individual is baptized, he should
examine himself to be sure that he is leaving the world behind once
and for all. We see then that the second step of the tabernacle
ministration plainly teaches us of water baptism. Blood and water
cleansed them to prepare them for entry into the Holy Place, even as
blood and water cleanses us in preparation of receiving the Holy
One into our lives! After cleansing, the priest would then take the
fire from off of the brazen altar and would enter through the veil
into the Holy Place. The Holy Place had no doors or windows
through which light could come. The only light to be provided here
was to come from the golden candlesticks. These candlesticks
consisted of seven wicks fed by oil from seven bowls. The wicks
had to be lit with the fire brought by the priest from the brazen altar.
The uniting at the candlesticks of the oil and fire to produce light is
a perfect type of the Holy Ghost and fire promised to New
Testament believers (Matthew 3:11). Without the light of the Holy
Ghost, we could not see to live in the Holy Place which is where
every Christian should live. God spoke of His great plan of
redemption in the Old Testament in types and shadows; and then in
the New Testament He spoke plainly to us so that we would have
no doubt of His will! Once again we recall the words of 1 John 5:8,
"There are three that bear witness in the earth, the SPIRIT, the
WATER, and the BLOOD; and these three agree in one". This Old
Testament lesson beautifully reaffirms to us the absolute necessity
of the full Born Again plan in each life for salvation!
Some Common Misconceptions.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ
Acts 16:30-31 reads this way, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved, and thy house." Many have taken this scripture to teach that
all that is required for salvation is to believe that Jesus Christ is the
Savior of the world; and from that point on, the individual is saved.
It is definitely true that an individual must believe that Jesus is the
Savior in order to be saved.
However, Paul, who spoke these words in Acts 16, has some further
teaching on the subject in Romans 10:13-15. Let's consider the text:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him OF WHOM they have not heard?
and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they
preach, except they be sent?" If we wanted to be absurd, we could
take this thirteenth verse to teach that all an individual must do for
salvation is to call out the name of Jesus one time and he has
received salvation. Paul tells us they can't call on him in whom they
have not believed. Furthermore, he said that they can't believe in
him OF WHOM they have not heard. We cannot merely believe.
We must believe SOMETHING about Christ. When Paul told the
jailer in Acts 16 to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, he went on to
speak unto him the word of the Lord (verse 32). The word which
Paul spake was apparently the GOSPEL; for the result in verse 33
was that the jailer and all his house were baptized at midnight.
That's how essential baptism is for salvation. Paul took all these
people out AT MIDNIGHT and baptized them!
Some would object here by saying that we are saved by faith alone.
It is true that we are saved by faith, but it is also true that true faith
always produces action on the part of the believer. Let's study from
James 2:14-22 to verify this point.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith,
and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or a sister be
naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them,
Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give
them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it
profit? Even so faith if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea,
a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works; shew me thy
faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith
without works IS DEAD? Was not Abraham our father justified by
works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thus
how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made
perfect?"
When an individual believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, what do they
believe about him? They believe the gospel, which is the death,
burial, and resurrection (I Corinthians 15:1-4). James teaches us that
faith without action is dead, or it is not really faith at all. When a
sinner hears the true gospel and truly believes, he will obey the
gospel. An individual obeys the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ by repentance, baptism, in Jesus' name, and the infilling of
the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking with other tongues. (Write
for our free booklet "Tongues - Devilish or Divine"). This is the
salvation of Calvary! "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works,
and by works was faith made perfect?" (or complete).
If you are still having trouble conceding to this teaching because of
the element of works involved, let's reason concerning one more
point. Being born again is not considered by God to be a work. In
Titus 3:5 we are taught, "Not by works of righteousness which we
have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing
of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost;". This
scripture tells us that regeneration which is being born again is NOT
a work of righteousness.
Concluding this matter, we will cite a familiar Biblical example. In
the great revival at Samaria in Acts 8:5-23, a sorcerer named Simon
heard the preaching of Philip. He believed and was baptized and
continued with Philip beholding the signs and miracles which were
done. Many people would say that because Simon believed, he was
saved. Yet the Apostle Peter said of him in Acts 8:23, "For I
perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of
iniquity."
It is impossible for anyone in the bond of iniquity to be saved; for
the scriptures tell us, "if the Son therefore shall make you free, ye
shall be free indeed" (John 8:36). Simon believed and was baptized,
but he had not received the Holy Ghost; therefore, he was not born
again. We cannot be half-born and survive. The entire work of
Calvary is necessary for our salvation.
The thief on the cross.
Many have asked, "If an individual must repent, be baptized, and
receive the Holy Ghost for salvation, how was the thief on the cross
with Jesus saved?"
(Luke 23:38-43). First of all, it was impossible for anyone to be
born again at this time, for the born again plan was not yet
complete. Jesus had not died, been buried, and risen again. God has
always had a plan of salvation for each dispensation of time. In
Noah's day the only way of salvation was to get in the ark. In
Moses' day the only plan was the law. In the church dispensation,
the only way to be saved is to be born again. Jesus told Nicodemus,
"Ye MUST be Born Again."
Conclusion
May we point out as we conclude this study that we have been
given the first church and the Apostles after which to pattern our
teaching and practices.
In each recorded account of conversions under the Apostles'
ministries, the three steps of being born again are evident. In Acts
2:38, it was repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost. In Acts 8:12,
Acts 10:44-48, and Acts 19:1-6, we find the born again experience
taught and received. Why should we vary from this practice when
we are to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone?
Do not allow anything to turn you aside from this truth AGAIN. If
you haven't as yet, you should do so TODAY!
The term "Born Again" is one of the most used phrases among
present day religious people. Yet, if asked what the term "Born
Again" means, ninety percent of the world's church members could
not give a clear explanation.
The vital importance of this study is shown in that Jesus said,
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"
(John 3:3). Here Jesus is saying that TO BE BORN AGAIN IS TO
BE SAVED. Being born again is the plan of salvation that Jesus
authored at Calvary. It is imperative that we understand what is
required for us to be born again!
All agree that when Jesus went to the cross, he brought in the means
of salvation for everyone who will accept it. But what really
happened at Calvary? What can it do for me? How do I accept what
was done there in my own personal life?!
Let us first consider what really happened at Calvary. There were
three steps to the work of Christ to see that these three steps make
up the act of being born again spoken of by Jesus. To die, to be
buried, and to rise again So we see that Jesus through his death,
burial, and resurrection bought for us the plan of being born again
spoken of in John 3:3, whereby we receive salvation.
The fact that Jesus purchased a plan of salvation for us is the
greatest news the world has ever received. The thing we must
understand is that not only was it necessary for Jesus to do
something, but also it is absolutely essential for us to act upon what
he did. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Ye MUST be born again" (John
3:7).
Now the astonishing thing is that Nicodemus was a religious leader
of his day; yet, he had no conception of what it meant to be born
again! We find that the very same thing is true in the day in which
we live. Many men who fill positions of spiritual leadership in our
world have no real understanding of the "Born Again" experience.
Nicodemus inquired of Jesus in John 3:4, "How can a man be born
when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's
womb, and be born?" Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God." Nicodemus, you can't be born
again of a woman. The second birth is a spiritual birth.
Notice that Jesus said without being born again we cannot see or
enter the kingdom of God. In other words, we cannot be saved. On
the day of Pentecost when Peter preached the first message after
Calvary, the men cried out, "What must we do?" "Then Peter said
unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). Here Peter was giving to them the plan
of salvation repentance,baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
If being born again is to be saved, Peter was evidently talking to
them about being born again.
Remember, there were three steps to Calvary The way to accept
Calvary in our individual life is to accept the death,burial, and
resurrection of Christ.
We don't have to literally die,literally be buried, and literally rise
again. Jesus was our substitute and did this for us. All we must do is
accept what he did by spiritually dying, symbolically being buried,
and spiritually rising again.
We take on his death by repentance which is spiritual death. When a
person truly repents, he dies out to his own will, renounces it
forever, and vows to live from that time on according to the will of
Jesus Christ.
We take on his burial by baptism in water, by immersion into His
name.
Romans 6:4 says, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism".
Baptism MUST be done by immersion; for something cannot be
buried by sprinkling a little dirt on the top of it. That burial after a
few days would certainly prove to be insufficient! Furthermore,
EVERY baptism of which we have Biblical record was
administered by immersion. That alone should determine our course
of action on this matter.
Finally, we partake of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the
infilling of the Holy Ghost. This is the new life that enables us to
live as a Christian should.
We see then that being born again means to spiritually die
symbolically be buried. Thus, in plain language an individual must
repent of his sins, be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ by
immersion, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. IJohn 5:8 tells
us, "And there are three that bear witness in the earth, the Spirit, and
the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." What is the
one thing in which the spirit, water, and blood agree? Is it not the
new birth? Blood covers our sins at repentance; the waters of
baptism wash them away, thus making us clean for the spirit to
come into our lives to dwell. When the Roman soldiers thrust the
spear into Jesus' side after he died, the scripture tells us that there
came forth blood and water (John 19:34). This was for cleansing of
the nations. It takes blood and water to eradicate sin. Blood is the
cleansing agent, and water is the flushing agent. When a jar is
washed for canning, soap AND water are necessary to cleanse that
jar so that it might be filled with good fruit. Likewise, blood and
water are necessary to cleanse the human soul so that it may receive
the spirit of Christ which is the Holy Ghost. This teaching was
verified by Peter when he said, "Repent and be baptized FOR the
REMISSION of SINS" (Acts 2:38). Repentance and baptism are
both absolutely essential for the remission of sins!
Paul taught that the three steps of Calvary was the gospel that we
should preach. In I Corinthians 15:1-4 he tells us, "Moreover,
brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I preached unto
you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which
also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto
you, unless ye have BELIEVED IN VAIN. For I delivered unto you
first of all that which I also received, how that Christ DIED for our
sins according to the scriptures; And that he was BURIED, and that
he ROSE AGAIN the third day according to the scriptures:". Paul
went on the say in II Thessalonians 1:7-8, "And to you who are
troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from
heaven with his mighty angels. In flaming fire taking vengeance on
them that know not God, and that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of
our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul told us that the gospel is the death,
burial, and resurrection of Christ. How can we OBEY the death,
burial, and resurrection as we have previously explained? Notice
that the Lord Jesus is to appear "in flaming fire taking vengeance on
them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel." It is
absolutely necessary for every human being to obey the gospel by
being BORN AGAIN. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Ye MUST be BORN
AGAIN" (John 3:7).
Old Testament Speaks Of Born Again Plan.
Let us consider another Biblical lesson given to us concerning this
subject.
The Bible teaches us that the things of the Old Testament were
types and shadows of the things to come. When the priests of the
law ministered by offering sacrifices, there were three major steps
to their duties.
First they slew the animal to be offered on the brazen altar. The
blood here was shed and caught in a container for use in the Holy
Place. The flesh of the animal was to be consumed by fire. This
teaches us of the first step of salvation sacrifice, and our sins are
covered by the blood of Jesus.
After the shedding of blood, the priests were ordered to wash at the
laver and to cleanse themselves with water in preparation for
entering the Holy Place. The laver, a round fountain-like structure,
was overlaid in the bottom with a looking glass. When the priests
bent over to wash, he was able to see himself so that he could be
sure that he was clean. When an individual is baptized, he should
examine himself to be sure that he is leaving the world behind once
and for all. We see then that the second step of the tabernacle
ministration plainly teaches us of water baptism. Blood and water
cleansed them to prepare them for entry into the Holy Place, even as
blood and water cleanses us in preparation of receiving the Holy
One into our lives! After cleansing, the priest would then take the
fire from off of the brazen altar and would enter through the veil
into the Holy Place. The Holy Place had no doors or windows
through which light could come. The only light to be provided here
was to come from the golden candlesticks. These candlesticks
consisted of seven wicks fed by oil from seven bowls. The wicks
had to be lit with the fire brought by the priest from the brazen altar.
The uniting at the candlesticks of the oil and fire to produce light is
a perfect type of the Holy Ghost and fire promised to New
Testament believers (Matthew 3:11). Without the light of the Holy
Ghost, we could not see to live in the Holy Place which is where
every Christian should live. God spoke of His great plan of
redemption in the Old Testament in types and shadows; and then in
the New Testament He spoke plainly to us so that we would have
no doubt of His will! Once again we recall the words of 1 John 5:8,
"There are three that bear witness in the earth, the SPIRIT, the
WATER, and the BLOOD; and these three agree in one". This Old
Testament lesson beautifully reaffirms to us the absolute necessity
of the full Born Again plan in each life for salvation!
Some Common Misconceptions.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ
Acts 16:30-31 reads this way, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved, and thy house." Many have taken this scripture to teach that
all that is required for salvation is to believe that Jesus Christ is the
Savior of the world; and from that point on, the individual is saved.
It is definitely true that an individual must believe that Jesus is the
Savior in order to be saved.
However, Paul, who spoke these words in Acts 16, has some further
teaching on the subject in Romans 10:13-15. Let's consider the text:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him OF WHOM they have not heard?
and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they
preach, except they be sent?" If we wanted to be absurd, we could
take this thirteenth verse to teach that all an individual must do for
salvation is to call out the name of Jesus one time and he has
received salvation. Paul tells us they can't call on him in whom they
have not believed. Furthermore, he said that they can't believe in
him OF WHOM they have not heard. We cannot merely believe.
We must believe SOMETHING about Christ. When Paul told the
jailer in Acts 16 to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, he went on to
speak unto him the word of the Lord (verse 32). The word which
Paul spake was apparently the GOSPEL; for the result in verse 33
was that the jailer and all his house were baptized at midnight.
That's how essential baptism is for salvation. Paul took all these
people out AT MIDNIGHT and baptized them!
Some would object here by saying that we are saved by faith alone.
It is true that we are saved by faith, but it is also true that true faith
always produces action on the part of the believer. Let's study from
James 2:14-22 to verify this point.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith,
and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or a sister be
naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them,
Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give
them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it
profit? Even so faith if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea,
a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works; shew me thy
faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith
without works IS DEAD? Was not Abraham our father justified by
works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thus
how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made
perfect?"
When an individual believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, what do they
believe about him? They believe the gospel, which is the death,
burial, and resurrection (I Corinthians 15:1-4). James teaches us that
faith without action is dead, or it is not really faith at all. When a
sinner hears the true gospel and truly believes, he will obey the
gospel. An individual obeys the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ by repentance, baptism, in Jesus' name, and the infilling of
the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking with other tongues. (Write
for our free booklet "Tongues - Devilish or Divine"). This is the
salvation of Calvary! "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works,
and by works was faith made perfect?" (or complete).
If you are still having trouble conceding to this teaching because of
the element of works involved, let's reason concerning one more
point. Being born again is not considered by God to be a work. In
Titus 3:5 we are taught, "Not by works of righteousness which we
have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing
of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost;". This
scripture tells us that regeneration which is being born again is NOT
a work of righteousness.
Concluding this matter, we will cite a familiar Biblical example. In
the great revival at Samaria in Acts 8:5-23, a sorcerer named Simon
heard the preaching of Philip. He believed and was baptized and
continued with Philip beholding the signs and miracles which were
done. Many people would say that because Simon believed, he was
saved. Yet the Apostle Peter said of him in Acts 8:23, "For I
perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of
iniquity."
It is impossible for anyone in the bond of iniquity to be saved; for
the scriptures tell us, "if the Son therefore shall make you free, ye
shall be free indeed" (John 8:36). Simon believed and was baptized,
but he had not received the Holy Ghost; therefore, he was not born
again. We cannot be half-born and survive. The entire work of
Calvary is necessary for our salvation.
The thief on the cross.
Many have asked, "If an individual must repent, be baptized, and
receive the Holy Ghost for salvation, how was the thief on the cross
with Jesus saved?"
(Luke 23:38-43). First of all, it was impossible for anyone to be
born again at this time, for the born again plan was not yet
complete. Jesus had not died, been buried, and risen again. God has
always had a plan of salvation for each dispensation of time. In
Noah's day the only way of salvation was to get in the ark. In
Moses' day the only plan was the law. In the church dispensation,
the only way to be saved is to be born again. Jesus told Nicodemus,
"Ye MUST be Born Again."
Conclusion
May we point out as we conclude this study that we have been
given the first church and the Apostles after which to pattern our
teaching and practices.
In each recorded account of conversions under the Apostles'
ministries, the three steps of being born again are evident. In Acts
2:38, it was repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost. In Acts 8:12,
Acts 10:44-48, and Acts 19:1-6, we find the born again experience
taught and received. Why should we vary from this practice when
we are to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone?
Do not allow anything to turn you aside from this truth AGAIN. If
you haven't as yet, you should do so TODAY!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Della Morton on
-
-
In the book "The Trinity" by Woodrow Whidden, Ph. D., Jerry Moon, Ph. D., and John W. Reese (pursuing a Ph. D) published by Review and Herald in 2002 (which I had for almost two years now when I purchased it in April of 2002 during the Laity Convention in Orlando, FL), they wrote in the first chapter titled "The Strongest Biblical Evidence For The Trinity", p32.:
"Probably the strongest clues to such a divine triunity occur in the famous gospel commission that Jesus gave the church in its baptismal formula: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19)."
Let the reader decide for themselves based on the evidence presented here whether the current rendition of Matthew 28:19 is really the infallible word of God or is a man-made addition to the infallible word of God. We are all in agreement that all [authentic] scripture is infallible.
May God be glorified and may the reader submit to the authority of the authentic scriptures alone, forsaking human teachings and traditions of men,
alway
*******
Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible!
What Did Matthew Actually Write, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," OR "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME"?
This article is based on a publication which was originally written in 1961 and titled " A Collection of the Evidence For and Against the Traditional Wording of the Baptismal Phrase in Matthew 28:19 ". The author was a minister, presumably Protestant. He signed his work simply as A. Ploughman. He lived in Birmingham, England. The author had not encountered anything dealing with the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, during his 50 years of Biblical study except from out of print articles, books and encyclopaedias. I would have never considered reviewing this information except for the fact that a trusted friend was quite zealous about the importance of the conclusions reached. In this article, only the secular historical quotations have been retained as written from Ploughman's research.
Questioning the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not a matter of determining how easily it can or cannot be explained within the context of established doctrinal views. Rather, it is a matter of discovering the very thoughts of our God, remembering that His truth, and not our traditions, is eternal.
The information presented is extremely relevant to our faith. The amount of information supporting the conclusions presented may seem overwhelming, but for the serious seeker of truth, the search is well worth effort. I hope that you will allow the facts contained in this article to stir you into action. If you discover that you have not been baptized into the name of the true God, and have knowingly accepted a substitute, how would God respond?
However, it must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or even the third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the "early church fathers" wanted it to become.)
No single early manuscript is free from textual error. Some have unique errors; other manuscripts were copied extensively and have the same errors. Again, our aim is to examine all of the evidence and determine as closely as possible what the original words were.
Considering the fact that all of the scriptures from Genesis thru Malachi make no reference to a Trinitarian God, and that from Mark thru Revelation we also find no evidence for a Trinity, we must consider the possibility that all the existing manuscripts may have one or more textual errors in common.
According to the Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory:
The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.
More on these changes will be addressed later. Another writer said:
A great step forward is taken when we propose to give manuscripts weight, not according to their age, but according to the age of the text which they contain. By proving how honest a text is rather than strictly how old it is provides us with a text which has content that is truly ancient. When we verify that a text is older than the fourth century, that it was current in the third or better still the second century, we still cannot be sure that it has not been altered. We need to try to verify that the text is pure text. There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century. What we wish to ascertain, however, is not merely an ancient text but an accurate text.
Of course, "the grossest errors," that this writer is referring to are not doctrinal errors, but the errors in the text itself. Not surprisingly tho, some of these textual corruptions occurred simultaneously with the respective doctrinal changes as they were being introduced in the early church. This historic falling away will be addressed later.
Just as with the manuscripts, all extant Versions, containing the end of Matthew, also contain the Triune name. But, of course, there is more to be considered than what is present in a document. One must also take into consideration what is absent. Again quoting from the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics: "In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional [Trinitarian] form. ..though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts, both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective at this point."
F.C. Conybeare further elaborated:
In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew.
So then, though all early Versions contain the traditional Triune name in Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions do not contain the verse at all. And curiously, not due to omission, but due to removal! We can not be certain of the motives why these pages were destroyed, but for the sake of our study we are now compelled to consult the early historical writings
Excerpts of Early Catholic Writers
Before we make references concerning these early writers, it should be emphatically stated, that if the question under consideration were one of doctrine, the written records of these Catholic writers would be totally irrelevant. Doctrine must be obtained from the pure Word of God alone, and not from Catholics, Jews or other sources. These self proclaimed "fathers" lived in an age of unrestrained heresy. Their testimony is valuable only because they provide an incidental and independent verification of scriptural texts much older than our current complete copies.
In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text of Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic [L. pater:"father"] evidence against it, so weighty that in the future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the 'Three Witnesses'. - F.C. Conybeare in the Hibbert Journal
Could this bold statement be true? While not a single manuscript from the first three centuries remains in existence, we do have "eye witness" observations of at least two men who actually had access to manuscripts dating much earlier than our earliest. Others also quoted Matthew 28:19, whose written works have been preserved, dating to much earlier times than our best manuscript copies. We are about to examine who these men were and what the circumstances were. We will attempt to determine if these are reliable quotations of the original scriptures. How did they quote Matthew 28:19? Did their comments imply an existing controversy surrounding the use of the scriptures being quoted? Was a Trinity implied? These are questions that can be answered.
In the pages ahead, we will consider evidence from the following men, either via quotations from their writings, or as commented upon thru the writings of their contemporaries:1) Eusebius of Caesurae, 2) The unknown author of De Rebaptismate, 3) Origen, 4) Clement of Alexandria, 5) Justin Martyr, 6) Macedonius, 7) Eunomius and 8) Aphraates.
Our search through their writings is not to establish any doctrine, but to find early witnesses to the verse in question.
Eusebius of Caesurae
Our first witness will be Eusebius of Caesurae, also known as Eusebius Pamphili. He was born around 270 A.D., and died around 340 A.D. He lived in times of rampant doctrinal change, was a Trinitarian, and in later life assisted in the formation of the Nicene Creed. Regarding our inquiry into Matthew 28:19, Eusebius is our key witness. Therefore, to establish his veracity as a credible witness, let us consider the following quotes:"Eusebius of Caesurae, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many contemporary works of antiquity, many of which would have perished had he not collected and edited them." Robert Roberts, in Good Company, vol. III, pg. 10
Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time. .. worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. .. Eusebius. .. relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony. E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial footnote.
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesurae in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning. Chapter 2, 9. .. Till about 40 years of age he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilus, a learned and devout man of Caesurae, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning. Dr. Wescott, in "General Survey," page 108
Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. Peake Bible Commentary, page 596
The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was Eusebius of Caesurae. .. Eusebius was a man of little originality or independent judgment. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of the second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a deep debt to his honest, if some-what confused, and at times not a little prejudiced, erudition. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature
Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose. Under the head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with the materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known. .. The passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation. .. Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins. .. in general terms, without entering into details. .. but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. Mosheim, again in an editorial note.
Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded. Mosheim
Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood in the Greek Manuscripts from about 300-340 A.D., none is so important as Eusebius of Caesurae, for he lived in the greatest Christian Library of that age, that namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say from this single collection of manuscripts at Caesurae derives the larger part of the surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his Library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries. F.C. Conybeare, in the Hibbert Journal, October 1902.
Considering the honesty, ability and opportunity of Eusebius as a witness to the "New Testament" text, let us now move on to the his evidence concerning Matthew 28.
The Evidence of Eusebius
According to Ludwig Knupfer, the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius, among his many other writings compiled a file of corrupted variations of the Holy Scriptures, and:
The most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19.
His source material has been lost, as he later wrote:
through events of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with the magazine.
But various authorities mention a work entitled Discrepancies in the Gospels, and another work entitled The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.
According to Conybeare:
Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany. .. in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. '
Ploughman's research uncovered all of these quotations except for one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. Eusebius was not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once commented on it in such a way as to show how much he confirmed the wording "in my name". Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he wrote the following:
For he did not enjoin them "to make disciples of all the nations" simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition "in his name". For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. " It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.' (col. 240, p. 136)
see part 2
-
-
Part 2
Conybeare proceeded, in Hibbert Journal, 1902:
It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nicea. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About the Theology of the Church,' he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae.
In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare wrote:
It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus - this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading.
Naturally an objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, who argued that Eusebius indeed found the traditional text in his manuscripts, but substituted the briefer wording in his works for fear of vulgarizing the "sacred" Trinitarian wording. Interestingly, a modern Bishop revived the very argument used 150 years earlier, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7-8:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood:and these three agree in one.
According to Porson (in a preface to his Letters):
Bengel. .. allowed that the words (The Three Witnesses) were in no genuine manuscripts. .. Surely then, the verse is spurious! No! This learned man finds a way of escape. 'The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost. ' Under what a lack of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an argument!?
Conybeare continued, refuting the argument of the Bishop of Ely:
It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius' argument, when he cites the text, involves the text 'in my name. ' For, he asks, 'in whose name?' and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10.
Finally, the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics states:
The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all the nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent.
Having considered the evidence of Eusebius, let us also consider some other early writers.
Other Early Writings
The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood them, and dwells at length on 'the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism'. (The Author of De Rebaptismate, from Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, page 352.)
In Origen's works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words 'the nations'; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'in my name', struck out. ¨¢ Conybeare
In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a Gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows:'And to the Apostles he gives the command:Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. '" - Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare.
Justin [Martyr]. .. quotes a saying of Christ. .. as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19. - Enc. of Religion and Ethics
In Justin Martyr, who wrote between A. D.130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e. g.Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin's dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258:'God hath not afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ. ' "The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation our of text was that they ignored the formula 'baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. ' But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes the difficulty:and Justin is seen to have had the same text as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300 to 340. - Conybeare (Hibbert Journal)
We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was writing, early in the third century. In the middle of that century Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the baptisms even of the heretics were valid, if the name of Jesus alone was invoked. ( This decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire Celtic Church for its remaining faithful to the old use of invoking in Jesus name ). In the last half of the fourth century, the text 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' was used as a battle cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called 'pneumato-machi' or 'fighters against the Holy Spirit', because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and Son. They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a coordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius. - Conybeare (Hibbert Journal)
Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out. Cyprian (Ep. 73) and the 'Apostolic Canons' (no. 50) combat the shorter formula, thereby attesting to its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of the Apostolic Canon therefore runs:'If any bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms of one initiation, but one baptism which is given (as) into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. ' "This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5:24), 'for they baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ. ' They accordingly used single immersion only. - Encyclopedia Biblia (Article on "Baptism")
There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates. .. who wrote between 337 and 345. He cites our text in a formal manner, as follows:'Make disciples of all the nations, and they shall believe in me'. The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebian reading 'in my name'. But in any case, they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible. ¨¢ Conybeare
How the Manuscripts Were Changed
The following quotations demonstrate how freely the scribes altered the manuscripts of the "New Testament", in stark contrast to the scribes of the "Old Testament" scriptures who copied the holy writings with reverence and strict accuracy.
These quotations also show the early heretical beginning of Trine immersion at a time when the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated, and how the "New Testament" writings were changed to conform to the syncretized practice.
In the case just examined (Matt. 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising, for as Dr. C.R.Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us:'The Greek Manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings. '(Canon and Text of the N.T. 1907, pg. 424). "These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have been revised and interpolated by orthodox copyists. We can trace their perversions of the text in a few cases, with the aid of patristic citations and ancient versions. But there must remain many passages which have been so corrected, but where we cannot today expose the fraud. It was necessary to emphasize this point, because Dr. Wescott and Hort used to aver that there is no evidence of merely doctrinal changed having been made in the text of the New Testament. This is just the opposite of the truth, and such distinguished scholars as Alfred Loisy, J. Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolf Harnack, to mention only four names, do not scruple to recognize the fact. " While this is perfectly true, nevertheless, "there are a number of reasons why we can feel confident about the general reliability of our translations. "- Peter Watkins, in an excellent article 'Bridging the Gap' in The Christadelphian, January, 1962, pp. 4-8.
Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing manuscripts. .. if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius therefore, is not without ground for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once. - Fraternal Visitor 1924, page 148, translation from Christadelphian Monatshefte.
We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures. .. by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption, made in any one of them by either the Eusebians or Arians. Whiston - in Second Letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p. 15.
While trine immersion was thus an all but universal practice, Eunomius (circa 360) appears to have been the first to introduce (again) simple immersion 'unto the death of Christ. ' This practice was condemned on pain of degradation, by the Canon Apostolic 46 (al 50). But it comes before us again about a century later in Spain; but then, curiously enough, we find it regarded as a badge of orthodoxy in opposition to the practice of the Arians. These last kept to the use of trine immersion, but in such a way as to set forth their own doctrine of a gradation in the three Persons. Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Article on Baptism)
In the 'Two Ways' of the Didache, the principal duties of the candidates for baptism and the method of administering it by triple immersion or infusion on the head are outlined. This triple immersion is also attested to by Tertullian (Adverses Prax 26). .. The most elaborate form of the rite in modern Western usage is in the Roman Catholic Church. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - pp. 125-126
The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church. .. Its object, of course, to honor the three Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred. Catholic Encyclopedia - page 262
If it be thought, as many critics think, that no manuscript represents more than comparatively late recensions of the text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice. It seems easier to believe that the traditional text was brought about by this influence working on the 'Eusebian' text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics - Article on "Baptism"
The exclusive survival (of the traditional text of Matt. 28:19) in all manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. .. But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a Shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. .. The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out, and a text so invaluable to the dominant party could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities. Conybeare - In the Hibbert Journal
Athanasius. .. met Flavian, the author of the Doxology, which has since been universal in Christendom:'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, etc. ' This was composed in opposition to the Arian Doxology:'Glory to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit'. Robert Roberts, in "Good Company" (Vol. iii, page 49)
Whiston, in Second Letter Concerning the Primitive Doxologies, 1719, page 17, wrote:
The Eusebians. .. sometimes named the very time when, the place where, and the person by whom they (the forms of doxology) were first introduced. .. Thus Philoflorgius, a writer of that very age, assures us in 'Photius' Extracts' that in A. D.348 or thereabouts, Flavianus, Patriarch of Antioch, got a multitude of monks together, and did there first use this public doxology, 'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit'.
And regarding the alteration of scripture based on liturgical use, Hammond, in "Textual Criticism Applied to the N.T." (1890) page 23 wrote:
There are two or three insertions in the New Testament which have been supposed to have their origin in ecclesiastical usage. The words in question, being familiarly known in a particular connection, were perhaps noted in the margin of some copy, and thence became incorporated by the next transcriber; or a transcriber's own familiarity with the words may have led to his inserting them. This is the source to which Dr. Tregelles assigns the insertion of the doxology at the close of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6, which is lacking in most of the best authorities. Perhaps also Acts 8:37, containing the baptismal profession of faith, which is entirely lacking in the best authorities, found its way into the Latin text in this manner.
Considering the evidence of the manuscripts, the versions and now the early writings, you should by now have come to conclusion that in the early centuries some copies of Matthew did not contain the modern Triune wording. Regardless of the opinions or positions taken by our commentators, we must at the very least admit that fact.
In legal practice where copies of an original lost document vary, the "Internal Evidence" is used to resolve the discrepancy. That is, a comparison of the undisputed text with text in question, in order to determine which of the variant wordings is more likely to be the original. With both variants in mind, we will now turn to the scriptures themselves for our internal evidence.
Internal Evidence
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. "(1 Thessalonians 5:21) In this verse, the Greek word translated as "prove" is dokimazo, and it means, "to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), to recognize as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy. "
In our efforts to determine which reading of Matthew 28:19 is original, we will submit both renderings to ten "tests". In doing so, we will be able to recognize the genuine, and expose the spurious.
1. The Test of Context
When examining the context, we find that today's Trinitarian wording lacks logical syntax, that is, the true understanding of the verse is obscured by a failure of the varying concepts to harmonize. If however, we read as follows, the whole context fits together and the progression of the instructions is comprehensible:
All power is given unto me. .. go therefore. .. make disciples in my name, teaching them. .. whatsoever I have commanded. .. I am with you. .. (Matthew 28:18-20)
2. The Test of Frequency
Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" used elsewhere in the scripture? Not once.
Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? Yes, 17 times to be exact, examples are found in Matt. 18:20; Mark 9:37,39 and 41; Mark 16:17; John 14:14 and 26; John 15:16 and 16:23.
3. The Test of Doctrine
Is any doctrine or concept of scripture based on an understanding of a threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatsoever. Is any statement in scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! This is clarified in 1 Corinthians 1:13:"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" These words, when carefully analyzed, suggest that believers should to be baptized in the name of the One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His unfathomable love, gave us His only Son to die in our stead, He being later raised to incorruptibility by the Spirit of God. But it is the Lord Jesus Himself who was crucified, and therefore in His name believers must be baptized in water.
According to Dr. Thomas, in Revealed Mystery Article XLIV:
There is but one way for a believer of 'the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ' to put Him on, or to be invested with His name, and that is, by immersion into His name. Baptism is for this specific purpose. " "As for it's significance, baptism is linked inseparably with the death of Christ. It is the means of the believer's identification with the Lord's death. - God's Way, pg. 190. The Father did not die, nor the Holy Spirit. As the scripture says, "buried with Him (Jesus) in baptism," not with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6:3-5)
R. Roberts used this explanation in "The Nature of Baptism", page 13):
According to trine immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from His position as the connecting link, the door of entrance, the 'new and living way. ' And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition to the apostolic declaration, that 'there is none other name (than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. '(Acts 4:12).
This, of course, is the same reasoning offered by Paul. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in any other name that replaces Christ from His position as the sacrificial Lamb and the only name given to us for salvation?
Based on the above understanding alone, we can ascertain the genuine text of Matthew 28:19 confirming the use of the phrase, "in my name."
4. The Test of Analogy
Does any other scripture make reference to baptism in the Triune name? No. Does any other scripture reference baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! The Father baptized the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit, a promise that came according to Jesus "in His name. "(John 14:26) This is because Jesus is the "common denominator " [Literally:Name] in both water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit, as made apparent by the following scriptures:
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away:for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See also John 7:39).
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Notice that they were baptized as a result of the preaching of the name of Jesus Christ, not the titles "Father, Son and Holy Ghost." By analogy, we should therefore be baptized in Jesus' name, because the invoking of His Name is the catalyst of understanding that prepares us for the baptism of the Spirit, which is also given in His name. (Acts 2:38-39, 19:1-5, John 3:3-5)
5. The Test of Consequence
When we are baptized, do we "put on" the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? No. Do we put on the name of Jesus? Yes. When we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to all baptismal accounts recorded in scripture, we are quite literally being baptized "into" the name of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
No mention is made in scripture of any baptism being related to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Every actual account mentions a clear connection with the person of Christ, and His atoning sacrifice.
6. The Test of Practice
Did the disciples, as they were implementing the "Great Commission" ever once baptize into the Trinity? Never! Did they baptize in the name of Jesus? Always! (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 (inferred); 19:5, etc.) The argument has been made when defending Triune immersion; "I would rather obey Jesus, than to imitate the Apostles." This kind of reasoning though, places the Apostles in rebellion, and makes all Apostolic baptisms contrary to the word of God. If all of God's Word was inspired, and it was, then we should not try to pit one verse against another, but rather seek to reconcile all of God's Word in proper context, and rightly apply it to our lives. It is easier to believe that the disciples followed the final instructions of Christ, than to believe that they immediately disobeyed His command.
7. The Test of Significance
What significance is mentioned in scripture for baptizing believers in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? None. What significance is conveyed toward being baptized in the name of Jesus? First, scripture teaches that baptism in the name of Jesus is an act of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Second, baptism in His name alone is associated with the promise of God's Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, 19:1-5). Third, baptism in the name of Jesus is compared to our personal willingness to be living sacrifices or even die with Christ. (Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12). Fourth, being baptized into Christ is how we 'put on' Christ (Galatians 3:27). Fifth, baptism in His name is called the "circumcision of Christ," and reflects our "putting off" of the man of sin, therefore becoming a " new creature in Christ Jesus. " (Colossians 2:11-12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Baptism in the name of Jesus expresses faith in the physical life of Jesus, the crucifixion of the Son of God for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. Trinitarian baptism can only express faith in Catholic theology itself.
8. The Test of Parallel Accounts
Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the gospels of the "Great Commission" of the Church. Luke also recorded this event in great detail. In Luke 24:46-47, he wrote of Jesus speaking in the third person:"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nation s. "This passage alone, in contradiction to the falsified text, establishes the correct wording of Matthew 28:19, where Jesus spoke in the first person, "in my name. "Further, the Gospel of Mark also records another version of the "Great Commission," using some of the same patterns of speech:"Go ye. .. all the world. .. preach the gospel. .. every creature. .. baptized. .. in my name. .. "(Mark 16:15-18) Of course, it is not baptism that "in my name" refers to here, but rather the works that the disciples would do. Yet compared to Matthew, the similarity is striking, for neither is baptism explicitly mentioned there, but that disciples should be made, "in my name. "
9. The Test of Complimentary Citation
While there is no text that offers a complimentary citation of Trinitarian baptism, there is a striking resemblance between the actual wording of Matthew 28:18-20 and Romans 1:4-5. Matthew contains the Commission of Christ to His Apostles, while the Romans account is Paul's acceptance of his own commission as an apostle. Consider the following similarities:
Matthew 28:18-20........................................Romans 1:4-5
"all power is given unto Me". ....................... "the Son of God with power"
"Go ye". ...................................................... "received. .. apostleship"
"teaching them to observe". .......................... "for obedience to the faith"
"all nations". ................................................. "all nations"
"in My name". ............................................... "for His name"
10. The Test of Principle
It is written:"whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. .." (Colossians 3:17). In this principle laid down by Paul, the implication is clear. The word "whatsoever" would of certain necessity include baptism, which is a command involving both word and deed. The traditional wording of Matthew, containing the Trinitarian wording, is clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter wording, without the falsified insertion, follows this principle. This establishes which of the two wordings is the contradictory one. God's Word does not contradict itself; rather it compliments and completes itself. Paul not only expressed this principle, but he applied it specifically to the topic of baptism. In Acts 19:1-6 there is an account concerning the disciples of John who had been baptized under his ministry. Like baptism in Jesus' name, John's baptism was one of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38). John message, which accompanied his baptism, was that One would come after him, who would "take away the sins of the world" and "baptize with the Holy Spirit. "Paul introduced these disciples to that One, and applied the above principle re-baptized them. "When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them" And so, applying the test of principle to our two readings in Matthew 28:19, we find very strong support for the phrase "in My name. "
Other Sources
Sufficient evidence has been produced to enable the reader to decide whether or not the Trinitarian wording in Matthew 28:19 is genuine. The following quotations are presented by way of interest, and are not used in the arena of textual criticism thus far employed.
The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 (in the traditional form) represents the exact words of Christ. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Article:Baptism:Early Christian.
The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' we should probably read simply, 'into my name'. Dr. Peake - Bible Commentary, page 723
There is the "triune" baptismal formula, which may prove a very broken reed when thoroughly investigated, but. .. we leave it for separate treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why one cannot find one single instance, in Acts or Epistles, of the words ever being used at any of the main baptisms recorded, notwithstanding Christ's (seemingly) explicit command at the end of Matthew's Gospel. F. Whiteley in The Testimony (Oct. 1959, pg. 351. "Back to Babylon")
The command to baptize in Matt. 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism suggests that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference. Williams R.R. - Theological Workbook of the Bible, page 29
Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name. .. soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only. Dean Stanley - "Christian Institutions"
The striking contrast and the illogical internal incoherence of the passage. .. lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interests of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the passage. E.K. in the Fraternal Visitor - Article:"The Question of the Trinity and Matt. 28:19." 1924, pg. 147-151, from Christadelphian Monatshefte.
In his Literal Translation of the Bible, Dr. Robert Young placed the Trinitarian "names" of Matthew 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be of doubtful authenticity.
The very account which tells us that at last, after His resurrection, He commissioned His disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself.
The Trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind. James Martineau - Black's Bible Dictionary, article "Seat of Authority",
The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula is a later addition. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
Professor Harnack dismissed the text almost contemptuously as being "no word of the Lord'. "Professor Harnack ¨¢ History of Dogma (German Edition)
Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that the apostles and epistles never once employ the triune name of Matt. 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing the idea of the Trinity was being resisted by the Church in the fourth century, admits (e. g.Peake) 'the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion', but still prior to our oldest yet known manuscripts (Fourth Century). It's sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a proven interpolation. Eusebius (A.D. 264-340) denounces the triune form as spurious, Matthew's actual writing having been baptizing them 'in my name'. F. Whiteley in The Testimony footnotes to Article:Baptism, 1958.
Should we correct the text of Matthew 28:19? We could not find a more serious divinely appointed symbolism in the entire Bible. The symbolic value of baptism in Matthew 28:19 could not be of less concern to God than that of the Ark of the Covenant was in ancient Israel. Uzzah died when he touched it, and few would conclude that his motives were anything but commendable!
Every symbolic action required by God is associated with actual cause and effect. Consider the following cause-and-effect examples. When Joshua pointed his spear there was victory (Joshua 8:18) Only three victories were given to Joash when he struck the ground only three times (2 Kings 13:19-25) The Passover Lamb had to be without blemish (even as was Christ), if a household was to be protected from the Death Angel (Exodus 12:5). None of God's rituals are without true meaning and consequences. When God speaks, it is done! Christ called Lazarus, and Lazarus arose! In matters of ritual, such as Baptism and the Passover, we are dealing with God's rituals, not man's.
All man-made rituals, no matter how well intentioned, when they deviate from the Word of God, are nothing more than unprofitable traditions that "making the Word of God of no effect" (Mark 7:13). Obedience to God's commands, however, will always "cause" a desirable "effect".
In the matter of establishing the original text of Matthew 28:19, it is indeed important to determine what is genuine, and what is spurious, in order to properly obey God's command. After all, that is the essence of our introductory text from Deuteronomy 4:2, "You shall not add. .. nor take from. .. that you may keep the commandments. "When we are obedient to the true command of our Lord, we can expect an eternal effect.
Believers were taught to anoint the sick "with oil in the name of the Lord. "(James 5:14) The result would be "that you may be healed". When two or three gather together " in His name", the result is that He is there in the midst of them. As our evidence reveals, Jesus commanded us to go and make disciples " in His name". As a result, He would be with them "always, even to the end of the age. "Anything we do "in His name" directly involves Him. It is no wonder that Paul so clearly charged those believers in Colosse:"Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him!"
-
-
Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible!
Were You Baptized (Immersed) Into Apostasy?
Constantine
Were you immersed contrary to the Bible? A Roman Emperor insisted that Trinitarian wording be inserted into the Latin Vulgate Bible as it was being written. The chapter explains how the fraudulent text has crept into virtually every modern English version of the Bible, and has even eluded being discovered by sects that dont teach that God is a Trinity. The question becomes: Does it matter whose name you were immersed into?
The Test of Consequence
Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom
INDEX
When we are immersed, do we “put on” the name of the Father, Son and sacred spirit? No. Do we put on the name of Yeshua? (Jesus*) Yes. When we are immersed in the name of Yeshua, according to all the immersion accounts recorded in the Bible, we are quite literally being immersed “into” the name of Yeshua, (I prefer to use the name that His friends, neighbors and family called Him over a translated form).
Galatians 3:27 Those who have been immersed into the Name of Jesus Christ, have put on the fine clothing of the Lord Jesus Christ.
No mention is made in the Bible of any immersion being related to the titles of Father, Son and sacred spirit. Every actual account mentions a clear connection with the person of Jesus Christ, and His atoning sacrifice.
The Test of Practice
Did the Disciples, as they were implementing the “Great Commission” ever once immerse into the Trinity? Never! Did they immerse in the name of Jesus Christ?—Always! (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 (inferred); 19:5, etc.) The argument has been made when defending Triune immersion; “I would rather obey Jesus, than to imitate the Apostles.” This kind of reasoning tho, places the Apostles in rebellion, and makes all Apostolic immersions contrary to the inspired Words. If all of His Words are inspired—and they are—then we shouldn't try to put one verse against another, but rather seek to reconcile all of God’s Words in proper context, and rightly apply them to our lives. It is easier to believe that the Disciples followed the final instructions of Yeshua, than to believe that they immediately disobeyed His command!
The Test of Significance
What significance is mentioned in the Bible for immersing believers in the name of the Father, Son and sacred spirit? None. What significance is conveyed toward being immersed in the name of Jesus Christ? First, the Bible teaches that immersion in the name of Jesus Christ is an act of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Second, immersion in His name alone is associated with the promise of Lord's spirit (Acts 2:38, 19:1-5). Third, immersion in the name of Jesus Christ is compared to our personal willingness to be living sacrifices, or even die with Him. (Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12). Fourth, being immersed into Jesus name is how we “put on” Christ (Galatians 3:27). Fifth, immersion in His name is called the “circumcision of Christ”, and reflects our “putting off” of the man of sin, and becoming a “new creature in our Jesus Christ.” (Colossians 2:11-12, 2 Corinthians 5:17). Immersion in the name of Jesus Christ expresses faith in the physical life of Jesus, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. Trinitarian immersion can only express faith in Catholic theology itself.
The Test of Parallel Accounts
Matthew 28 is not the sole record in the “New Testament” or The Testimony of Jesus Christ of the “Great Commission”. Luke also recorded this event in great detail. In Luke 24:46-47, he wrote : “And that repentance and remission of sins should be heralded in His name among all nations.” This passage alone, in contradiction to the falsified text, establishes the correct wording of Matthew 28:19, where Jesus spoke and said, “in My name”. Further, the gospel of Mark also records another version of the “Great Commission,” using some of the same patterns of speech: “Go ... into all the world ... preach the gospel ... every creature ...immersed ... in My name...” (Mark 16:15-18) Of course, it is not immersion that “in My name” refers to here, but rather the works that the Disciples would do. Yet compared to Matthew, the similarity is striking, because even tho immersion isn't explicitly mentioned there, Disciples should, nevertheless, be made “in My Name”.
“The command to baptize in Matt. 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of ‘Jesus’ [the Messiah]. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism suggests that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference. —Williams R.R., Theological Workbook of the Bible, page 29
“Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name ... soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Jesus only. —Dean Stanley, Christian Institutions
“The striking contrast and the illogical internal incoherence of the passage ... lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interests of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the passage. —E.K. in the Fraternal Visitor, Article: “The Question of the Trinity and Matt. 28:19.” 1924, pg. 147-151, from Christadelphian Monatshefte.
In his Literal Translation of the Bible, Dr. Robert Young placed the Trinitarian “names” of Matthew 28:19 in parentheses, to indicate that the words are of doubtful authenticity.
The very account that tells us that at last, after His resurrection, He commissioned His Disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself.
“The Trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind. —James Martineau, Black’s Bible Dictionary, article “Seat of Authority”,
“The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula is a later addition. —Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
Professor Harnack in his History of Dogma (German Edition) dismissed the text almost contemptuously as being “no word of the Lord’.”
“Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that the apostles and epistles never once employ the triune name of Matt. 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing the idea of the Trinity was being resisted by the Church*in the fourth century, admits (e.g. Peake) ‘the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion’, but still prior to our oldest yet known manuscripts (fourth Century). It’s sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a proven interpolation. Eusebius (A.D. 264-340) denounces the triune form as spurious, Matthew’s actual writing having been baptizing them ‘in my name’. —F. Whiteley in The Testimony footnotes to Article: Baptism, 1958.
PS There is another Biblical source that dismisses the Trinitarian formula of immersion, the Hebrew version of Matthew. The composite version compiled by Shem Tov, and named after him, is allegedly taken from an original Hebrew source. While Shem Tov, being Jewish, was against the teaching that Yeshua was the Messiah, he nonetheless preserved the entire book for the purpose of railing against it! While a bias against using the name of Yeshua crept in; I find it most interesting that the oldest known manuscripts, that Shem Tov is said to have been using, at least predates the Trinity theory, and therefore has no reference to a Trinitarian immersion. Following is a quote from an article on the Shem Tov:
“Lack of Trinitarian formula for baptism in Matt 28:19-20 [in the Shem Tov] is unique but [at least Yeshua] seems to be in codices that Eusebius found in Caesarea: he quotes (H.E. 3.5.2): “They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Jesus for he had said to them, “Go make Disciples of all the nations in My name”. The Shem Tov version of Matthew reads:
“You go and teach them to carry out all the things that I have commanded you forever.”
Should we correct the text of Matthew 28:19? We couldnt find a more serious and sacred symbolism in the Bible. The symbolic value of immersion in Matthew 28:19 is of no less importance than the Ark of the Covenant was in ancient Israel. Uzzah died when he touched it, and few would conclude that his motives were anything but commendable!
Every symbolic action required by The Lord is associated with actual cause and effect. Consider the following cause and effect examples. When Joshua pointed his spear there was victory (Joshua 8:18) Only three victories were given to Joash when he struck the ground only three times (2 Kings 13:19-25). The Passover Lamb had to be without blemish, just as God was, if a household was to be protected from death (Exodus 12:5). None of God's rituals are without true meaning and consequences. When the Lord speaks, it is done! Jesus called Lazarus, and Lazarus arose! In matters of ritual, such as immersion and the Passover, we are dealing with God's rituals, not man’s.
All man made rituals, no matter how well intentioned, when they deviate from the Word of God, are nothing more than unprofitable traditions when, “You reject the Word of God, because of the tradition that you hand down”. ... (Mark 7:13). Obedience to the lord commands, however, will always “cause” a desirable “effect”.
In the matter of establishing the original text of Matthew 28:19, it is certainly important to determine what is genuine and what is spurious, in order to properly obey the Lord's command. After all, that is the essence of the introductory text from Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 4:2 You must not add to the Words that I command you, or subtract from them, so that you can obey the Commandments of Yehovah your Elohim that I command you. WE
When we are obedient to the Commandments of Yehovah, we can expect an eternal effect.
The Saints* were taught to anoint the sick “with oil in the name of our Master.” (James 5:14) The result would be “so that you can be healed”. When two or three gather together “in His name”, the result is that He is there with them. As our evidence reveals, Yeshua commanded us to go and make Disciples “in His name”. As a result, He would be with them “always, even to the end of the age.” Anything we do “in His name” directly involves Him. It is no wonder that Paul so clearly charged the Nazarenes or “Christians” in Colossi to “do everything in the name of Jesus Christ.
-
Permalink Reply by John Hairston on
-
Sister are you implying that the scripture has error?
-
-
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."
Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.
"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."
On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles' Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ." Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?
"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles Creed."
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
-
-
Don't just take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. The pope openly admits they changed the wording from in my Name to the titles Father Son Holy ghost to fit their doctrine of the trinity which was not affirmed in scripture. The trinity was added after the true church of Jesus and his Apostles in the bible were already established.
I have provided the references with the page numbers.
Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.
Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity.
World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
New International Encyclopedia, Vol.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity, but there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.
Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels"
Many use the human reasoning and logic that the non-Biblical words "trinity", "triune" or "persons" (pertaining to God and/or the Godhead) should be accepted just as the words "rapture" and "Bible" are .... or even the word "sandwich" (for that matter). And, even though "sandwich" is not a Biblical word, I know they're real 'cause I ate one yesterday. So, my point ... or my question ... is, what Biblical words could be used in the place of the words "trinity", "triune" OR "persons" pertaining to God and/or the Godhead? I wouldn't have any trouble at all finding Biblical words to use in the place of "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible". They are: "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book".
Now, if those who embrace the man-made theory of the Trinity can find any words that will do for "truine", "persons" or "trinity" what the words "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book" will do for "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible", I would love to see them. Unless or until they can, I suggest that they stop adding to or taking from (depending on how you look at it) the Word of God by embracing, as dogmatically held doctrine, a theory which is NOT specifically mentioned in the Bible ... and without any Biblical words which could serve as a substitute to describe a "tag-team of wrestlers". And, while the Bible does NOT authorize a belief in three "persons" who jointly form One God, it does accurately describe God as the Father in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. There is more Scriptural to support three "forms" of God ... three "manifestations" of God ... three "titles" of God ... three "offices/positions" which God holds or ... three "roles" in which God functions ... than there is THREE PERSONS of God. That is strictly a flawed theory!
If it’s a matter of semantics, "one God in three persons" is an "add on" that people would be wise to just leave off.
My Dad can be very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and administrator. While He functions in more than one capacity and occupy more than one office, and wears a number of different hats, He is still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, He can be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, His wife and daughters, and He can speak, act and function as a father, son and husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons He is or who is talking.
English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD" (the Hebrew word Elohim).
**IF** the word "GOD" (Elohim) identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR.
Men started "reading" things into the Scriptures a couple centuries or so AFTER Jesus ascended back up into Heaven, and after the "foot print followers" of our Lord had passed on. As a result, there has evolved all sorts of religious beliefs and denominations. However, in order to get people to stop and think about a few things, I use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy quite a bit. Jesus said and did some of the things He said and did to set an example for those who witnessed it to follow, as well as for those of us who would read about it 2,000 years later. At any rate, the reason I use Clark Kent/Superman is because people are familiar with the scenario. And, although Clark Kent/Superman is a fictitious character, I contend that the Incarnate Christ was, indeed, the REAL Superman. And, as a result, Jesus often spoke of the Father as if the Father where someone other than Himself who was way off in another galaxy or solar system. As a former trinitarian, myself, I understand why those who have been indoctrinated to believe there's two or three of 'em up there believe such, as well as those who interpret ... and try to understand ... the Bible "literally". However, spiritual things are NOT understood with human reasoning and logic. And, Jesus was unlike any one else who has ever walked upon planet Earth. While He possessed the Glory and Power of Deity, He went about as a lowly servant. He had a "human" nature as a result of actually being born of a woman. And, He had a "Divine" nature as a result of Him being God manifested in the flesh. Also, Jesus served as the example ... or the template (so to speak) ... for all Christians to pattern themselves after. And, as a result, He said and did many things for our benefit ... AND to set an example for us to follow. By the way, I am NOT saying Jesus was deceitful, nor that He lied ... far from it. It's just that He could (and did) speak, act and function as any "ordinary" man, at times. And, He also could (and did) speak, act and function as Almighty God, at other times, while here on Earth. Those who have ears to hear, hears what the Spirit saith, and aren't trying to fuel a flawed, man-made, pre-conceived and indoctrinated agenda, will, I believe, come to the understanding as to who Jesus "really" is **IF** they truly hunger and thirst for righteousness. Then, it will be up to them what they do from that point. They can continue on in their traditions and doctrines of men OR they can come out from among them and be ye separate.
Since Isaiah was a MAJOR Messianic Prophet in the Old Testament, my challenge for every "natural" Jew and every professing Christian who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity OR those who believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel or some other inferior subordinate is very simple. I challenge all "natural Jews", all professing Christians who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity, the entire Watchtower Society constituency, the Vatican, and the entire Roman Catholic Church constituency, as well as any and all members and/or associates, past and present, of the various and sundry Protestant denominations, any and all independent Bible students and scholars including the entire constituency of the anything connected to or remotely resembling the Mormon Church ... or anyone else (**IF** I missed anybody) ... to read 11 Chapters in the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60, and 63) and then provide me with the Scripture(s) they believe supports the belief that the coming (prophesied and promised) MESSIAH aka Jesus Christ would be someone BESIDES Jehovah/God, Himself.
Those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine understand something very important: The Incarnate Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... God manifest in the flesh. And, these are just a few of the documenting Scriptures I use ... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12; Micah 1:2-3; John 1:1-14; John 10:30-33; John 14:6-11; Colossians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 2:8; Rev. 21:6; and Rev. 22:13.
Yes, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a flawed man-made theory, and is NOT "sound doctrine" at all. Therefore, upon learning this, a person should ask themselves this question, "Do I want Truth in its entirety, or do I want man's flawed theories and traditions?" Whatever you decide, it is entirely up to you. In the final analysis of things, you and I will be justified or condemned not by just our faith and beliefs alone, but also by the words we speak AND our deeds. Silence can be interpreted as consent. There are sins of omissions and sins of commission. And, there will be lots of "good" people in hell. Being "good" is NOT good enough. If you doubt or dispute that, read Acts Chapter 10. Cornelius was a good man but he still needed salvation.
A very closely related subject to this is the words that are invoked at baptismal services. The name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 is the precious name of JESUS. Quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill the Great Commission. Those who knew how it was to be done, invoked the precious name of Jesus in Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 10:44-48; and Acts 19:1-6. Jesus was NOT telling His disciples what to "say" in Matthew 28:19, He was telling them what to "do". Besides, nobody was baptized in Matthew 28:19. And, nobody in the entire Bible was baptized in the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are admonished in Colossians 3:17 to do whatever we do in "word AND deed", to do it all of it in the "NAME of Jesus". And, besides the baptism examples, here are a couple other places (direct "quotes") where the "name of Jesus" was invoked in word and deed instead of the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ....
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
History also documents baptism in the name of Jesus ...
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the triune name (Justin)…"
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: " evidence .. suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"
Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."
Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"
Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."
My advice to you is, if you aren't affiliated with one now, that you find yourself a church which embraces, teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and baptizes in the precious name of Jesus ... the name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 ... and go there, and see (and feel) the difference for yourself!
Any United Pentecostal Church or Apostolic Pentecostal church in your area!
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
I really hope you will consider what you've read in these articles and Pray. When we meet Jesus one day face to face, we will have to answer to Him what we believe. And I don't want it to be said about me that I didn't follow His Apostles Teachings to be saved but rather traditions of men! Jesus can open the Book and judge us out of it!
By then it will be too late. I am going to end with these verses for you to consider a well.
Colossians 2:7-9 (King James Version)
7Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
In Who? Christ! I don't see three,but One God!
The Lord Bless you! Love in Christ, Della Morton
-
-
So why do you believe in The Trinity which teaches that there are 3 separate persons and EACH one are God separately but not each other!?
-
Permalink Reply by Hezekiah Ben Israel on
-
Permalink Reply by R. Denise Baker on
-
ok based on what you posted over there... you take the position that only when we are changed at the coming of Jesus Christ, that we are born again then?
things that make ya go "hhhhmmmmmmmm....."
-
-
So another words Ben: If a person can not change while on earth only after: Why don't you read verses Jn.3:3-5
John 3:5 (King James Version)
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Also why Since it was a promise from the Father did the New testament church receive the Holy Ghost and speaking in other tongues Acts 2 Acts 10:44-48 Acts 19:1-6 is it not available to us today to receive
the same way? If it is do you think there's no change involved? From sinful nature to new creature in Christ?
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
