Matthew 28:19, Baptism in the name of JESUS or Who?

Baptism How??? This is a very thorough study on the subject of Baptism and on the text of Matt. 28:19. What we have been led to believe is simply NOT TRUE!! Don't be fooled.

Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible!

Were You Baptized (Immersed) Into Apostasy?

Trinitarian Baptism! A Pagan Baptism!


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?

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,

"Those who are baptized in the threefold name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, at the very entrance of their Christian life declare publicly that they have forsaken the service of Satan and have become members of the royal family, children of the heavenly king."--Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 91. {7ABC 442.6}


Test of Discipleship

“None can depend upon their profession of faith as proof that they have a saving connection with Christ. We are not only to say, ‘I believe,’ but to practice the truth. It is by conformity to the will of God in our words, our deportment, our character, that we prove our connection with Him.”—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 92.

“It should be understood whether [the candidates] are simply taking the name of Seventh-day Adventists, or whether they are taking their stand on the Lord’s side, to come out from the world and be separate, and touch not the unclean thing. Before baptism there should be a thorough inquiry as to the experience of the candidates. Let this inquiry be made, not in a cold and distant way, but kindly, tenderly, pointing the new converts to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Bring the requirements of the gospel to bear upon the candidates for baptism.”—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, pp. 96-97.

“There is not enough careful, prayerful, painstaking investigation in accepting members into the church. . . . There is one thing that we have no right to do, and that is to judge another man’s heart or impugn his motives. But when a person presents himself as a candidate for church membership, we are to examine the fruit of his life, and leave the responsibility of his motive with himself. But great care should be exercised in accepting members into the church; for Satan has his specious devices through which he purposes to crowd false brethren into the church, through whom he can work more successfully to weaken the cause of God.”—Review and Herald, January 10, 1893.
Rebaptism

Although baptism is generally performed only once, a person should be rebaptized upon repentance if he has broken his covenant with God through apostasy. There is also an example of rebaptism for other reasons than apostasy. When Paul found some disciples in Ephesus, they already believed the truth and were already baptized with a correct baptism and in the right manner. But when they received a clearer knowledge of the truth, they were rebaptized. Acts 19:1-5. Honest souls when come to the knowledge of present truth will recognize the need to go through the door to enter Christ’s spiritual kingdom.

“Christ has made baptism the sign of entrance to His spiritual kingdom.” —Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 91.

“The honest seeker after truth will not plead ignorance of the law as an excuse for transgression. Light was within his reach. God’s word is plain, and Christ has bidden him search the Scriptures. He reveres God’s law as holy, just, and good, and he repents of his transgression. By faith he pleads the atoning blood of Christ, and grasps the promise of pardon. His former baptism does not satisfy him now. He has seen himself a sinner, condemned by the law of God. He has experienced anew a death to sin, and he desires again to be buried with Christ by baptism, that he may rise to walk in newness of life. Such a course is in harmony with the example of Paul in baptizing the Jewish converts. That incident was recorded by the Holy Spirit as an instructive lesson for the church.” —Sketches From the Life of Paul, p. 133.

“If you have lost your Christlikeness, my brethren and sisters, you can never, never come into communion with God again until you are reconverted and rebaptized. You want to repent and to be rebaptized, and to come into the love and communion and harmony of Christ.”—Sermons and Talks, vol. 1, p. 366.

“I speak to our leading brethren, to our ministers, and especially to our physicians. Just as long as you allow pride to dwell in your hearts, so long will you lack power in your work. For years a wrong spirit has been cherished, a spirit of pride, a desire for preeminence. In this Satan is served, and God is dishonored. The Lord calls for a decided reformation. And when a soul is truly reconverted, let him be rebaptized. Let him renew his covenant with God, and God will renew His covenant with him.”—Manuscript Releases, vol. 7, p. 262.*******
Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible! 

A Collection of Evidence Against the 
Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19, click here for the website.


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"?

Note Peter’s bold words: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 )

Precious Name Jesus Christ

Being immersed into Jesus’s saving Name has far greater importance and meaning than is generally perceived. Jesus proclaimed, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me,” John 14:6. John 10:9 states that Jesus is the “door” of the sheepfold.

Only through JESUS is the Holy Spirit given us. The Spirit is first given to JESUS as we see in Acts 2:33:“Therefore, being by the right hand of GOD exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has shed forth this, which you now see and hear.”

The Holy Spirit is channeled to mankind in the Name of Jesus. Notice John 14:26: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name...”

The Savior had to go to the heavens so that the Spirit could be available to mankind through JESUS. “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 [it] unto you,” John 16:7.

The Holy Spirit is given by GOD only through Jesus’s saving Name. “Neither is salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” Acts 4:12 . See Titus 3:4-6.

Receiving of His indwelling Spirit is one manifestation. In taking on His true Name we become a part of His Body. We become a part of the family called by GOD’s Name (Ephesians 3:14 -15).


JESUS is the Name God Answers in Prayer. 

Jesus said that whatever we ask in His Name He will do it that God would be glorified (Jhn. 14:13-14). That alone is a powerful thought and an encouragement to anyone who is suffering or in need. As His children we can ask in Jesus name and God will hear and answer us. It is a promise and God can not lie. 

Only those who know Him can use His Name. 

However, the condition of usage is that only those with a relationship with Jesus can exercise the divine power and authority of His Name. When the sons of Scheva illegitimately tried to use Jesus Name to cast out devils, the demons would not move because the men lacked relationship (Acts. 19:13-16). But, when those who are His children use the Name of Jesus we are promised that signs will follow (Mk. 16:17) as they did in the book of Acts e.g. Peter & John healing the crippled man in Jesus’ Name (Acts. 4:10). 

JESUS Name Baptism is the ONLY Biblical Baptism. 

There is not ONE example of a baptism done in ‘Father, Son & Holy Ghost’ in the scripture. It was a later addition, to which all historians agree. It was added to justify the doctrine of the Trinity, adopted in AD 325 at the Council of Nicea. However, biblical baptism was not originally associated with a debate on the Godhead. But, it was linked from the beginning to the atoning work of Jesus Christ. This is why baptism was to be in His Name, for He is the One who was crucified, died and rose for our sins (1 Cor. 1:13). 

In JESUS Name Identifies Us With His Atoning Work. 

In Romans 6:3 it makes it plain that by being baptised in Jesus’ Name we are identifying with His death, burial and resurrection. Acts 2:38 explains that only by using the Name of Jesus can our sin be removed (remitted). Therefore, to plunge and not use the name is invalid as no identification with Christ’s atoning work has taken place. The express purpose of the Triune formula is to identify one with the Trinity. Being identified with the Trinity is different to being identified with Christ’s atoning work. Christ never intended for baptism to be into the Trinity, it was supposed to be into His death, burial and resurrection – into Christ, and Christ alone. Worse, neither the term Trinity nor a concrete definition of this taken for granted doctrine is found in scripture. Which of the Apostles ever used the words ‘person’, ‘substance’, ‘co-equal’ or ‘co-eternal’ to describe The Holy One? 

Take on His Name Today! 

Baptism in Jesus name is an essential for all who love the Lord. The answer as to why has been provided above, the question now is ‘why not?’. Why would someone not want to have the name of Jesus called over them in baptism? Why would one shy away from accepting the deity and all sufficiency of Christ? 

There are two poignant examples in scripture.
 

Cornelius’ Household have been filled with the Spirit, speaking in tongues and yet Peter commanded that they should be baptised in Jesus’ name. Also, Paul visited the disciples baptised to John the baptist and they too needed to be re-baptised in Jesus’ name. This is suggesting that any other form of Christian baptism will not do. It needs to be in Jesus name. It needs to be the way that God intended because of the awesome redemptive power associated with JESUS’ name. 

Don’t Settle For Less Than JESUS. 

I would exhort anyone reading this post who has not yet taken on the sweet name of Jesus in baptism to search the scriptures for themselves and prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. You will see from exploring the scriptures that baptism is in JESUS name, and yes, it does matter how you are baptised. Jesus is expecting you to take His Name! 


1 Corinthians 3:23 
"And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."

Matthew 28:19 Study

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Mat.28:19,20)

This is, by far, the most difficult Biblical Text to deal with if you don't agree with the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. It is perhaps the only real Biblical text containing the Trinitarian formula per se. This text has bothered me for a very long time - since before I came to the belief I now hold regarding the Godhead and the Holy Spirit. Here is the reason it bothered me so.

In Matthew 28:19 (if we accept these words to be the words of Christ) we find a direct command from Jesus for His disciples to go and baptize in the "name, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." First of all, we have to wrestle with the fact that the text instructs them to baptize in the "name" (Singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now I understand that Jesus said that He and the Father are "one," but if you want to show that these three are separate individuals then you would want to use the Plural ("names") instead of the singular. More troubling than that though is the fact that this is a direct command. Surely the disciples realized the importance of obeying their Lord and Savior! Surely they would follow His instructions to the letter - especially if Christ had been as specific about the procedure as He appears to be in this verse. WHY is it then that we have absolutely NO examples of the disciples obeying Christ by following this direct instruction on how to baptize? You can search the entire New Testament through and never find an example of the disciples baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. What you will find are examples in which they always, and only, baptized in the name of JESUS. Why is that? Doesn't that bother you?

In the book of Acts we find examples of the disciples "making disciples" of other men and baptizing them into the Lord Jesus Christ. In each of the examples recorded we find them baptizing in the name of "Jesus."

Acts 2:38 "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" Acts 8:16 "For He [Holy Spirit] had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 10:48 "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Were the disciples careless about following our Lord's instructions? Or did they understand perfectly what Jesus had told them to do? Isn't it more plausible (likely) that the disciples were obedient to Jesus and followed His instructions? And if this is the case, isn't it probable that those instructions were not stated as we find them recorded in Matthew 28:19?

Now I don't want to sound like some naysayer who, whenever I come to a "difficult" text, immediately says that it "doesn't belong there" or that it is "corrupt" and inserted by someone other than the actual author of the text. However, we need to be honest in our approach to God's Word and not be afraid to critically examine it - comparing Scripture with Scripture - to insure that it maintains its integrity and continuity. Unfortunately, most of us do not want to critically examine these things and prefer to read into a text our own preconceived opinions and beliefs. We don't want to "THINK" about or "QUESTION" anything. And we take great pride in suggesting that by accepting whatever we read in the Bible as being directly inspired by God that we are being more faithful to God than someone who critically examines and questions the statements found there (this is especially true in regards to difficult texts such as the one at hand). In fact, we are often predisposed to attack anyone who questions something we have believed for so long and who challenges us to look at our cherished beliefs in a different manner. I am quite certain that many will attack me for espousing the position I have set forth in this study. But that does not mean that these things are not true. Throughout history, many have been ridiculed (and even killed) for challenging a long-held belief - only to be proven correct as the Spirit of the Lord has brought Truth after Truth back into its proper light and understanding. Wasn't Martin Luther severely chastised for preaching Righteousness by Faith? Haven't Seventh-day Adventists been ridiculed for their preaching the Sabbath? Could we be in danger of rejecting further light simply because we are unwilling to let go of a long-held belief? Could we be in danger of rejecting "new light" simply because we have become too lazy to honestly and critically study God's Word for ourselves - preferring instead to be spoon fed by the men we consider "leaders" and "scholars"? I simply cannot afford to do this - and neither can you. Mrs. White has told us that this can be a very risky thing to do:

"Every soul must look to God with contrition and humility, that He may guide and lead and bless. We must not trust to others to search the Scriptures for us. Some of our leading brethren have frequently taken their position on the wrong side; and if God would send a message and wait for these older brethren to open the way for its advancement, it would never reach the people" (GW 1913: p. 303).

"I have been shown that ministers and people are tempted more and more to trust in finite man for wisdom, and to make flesh their arm….I entreat of you to search the Scriptures as you have never yet searched them, that you may know the way and will of God. O that every soul might be impressed with this message, and put away the wrong" (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 10 (1909); found in Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, pp. 480,481).

"Investigation of every point that has been received as truth will repay the searcher: He will find precious gems. And in closely investigating ever jot and tittle which we think is established truth, in comparing Scripture with Scripture, we may discover errors in our interpretation of Scripture.[Note: It sounds to me that EGW is including herself in this statement] Christ would have the searcher of his word sink the shaft deeper into the mines of truth. If the search is properly conducted, jewels of inestimable value will be found. The word of God is the mine of the unsearchable riches of Christ" (RH, July 12, 1889; par.15).

"There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. [Note: Again, it seems that EGW is including herself in this statement]. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation" (RH, December 20, 1892; par. 1).

"We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances, to be relinquished.[Note: Once again, it seems that EGW is including herself in this statement]. There is but One Who is infallible -- He Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Those who allow prejudice to bar the mind against the reception of truth cannot receive the divine enlightenment" (Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers; p. 105, par. 2,3).

"When God's people are at ease, and satisfied with their present enlightenment, we may be sure that He will not favour them. It is His will that they should be ever moving forward, to receive the increased and ever increasing light that is shining for them. The present attitude of the church is not pleasing to God. There has come in a self-confidence that has led them to feel no necessity for more truth and greater light" (5T: pp. 708, 709).See New Light Quotes for additional New Light quotes from the Spirit of Prophecy (these will open up in a new window and are real eye-openers)!

Ellen White was also emphatic that the BIBLE and the BIBLE ALONE should be the basis of all our doctrines and that: “God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support. (Great Controversy; p.595, par. 1). I would only add that it is NEVER proper to use ONE text as a basis for an entire DOCTRINE! The Bible must be studied, comparing Scripture with Scripture, in order to arive at a proper understanding of any Doctrine. In so doing, we may find that “some” texts (as we have them in our Bible translations) have obviously been altered or added by the Post-Apostolic Church and its translators and that these texts are not only “suspect” but deserve very close scrutiny!

Matthew 28:19 is indeed a very suspect text. One of the reasons this is the case is that there is a very large gap of time from the time Matthew wrote his Gospel and the earliest Greek manuscripts we have containing the words found in Matthew 28:19 - almost three hundred years exist between the two. Unfortunately, the "Church" during this time period was also slipping quickly into darkness. The Catholic Church developed much of their theology during this time and was doggedly zealous in its enforcement of these doctrines. If you dared to challenge them, you were labeled a heretic and could face shunning, censure, and even death. To have only manuscripts dating to this time (the 3rd and 4th centuries - during which the Catholic Church was firmly establishing itself and its beliefs as the authority of the Scriptures), is a very real and a very big problem. This fact alone should immediately call for some caution in our acceptance of "every word" contained in these documents. It would be nice if we had older, more reliable manuscripts to work from. Unfortunately, as F.C. Conybeare informs us; "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" [The Hibbert Journal. A Quarterly Review of Religion, Theology, and Philosophy. Vol. I, No. 1 (Oxford: October 1902) pp. 102-108. Emphasis mine. See also 'The Eusebian Form of the Text of Matthew 28:19' Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentlich Wissenschaft 2: 1901, pages 275-288. (ZNW 2: 1901, 275-288)]. In "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" which uses Hebrew texts pre-dating the Greek texts which we have [These Hebrew manuscripts are of the Ante-Nicene era (pre-dating the First Council of Nicaea-325A.D.). Matthew's Gospel was written for the Jew and would most likely have been written in Hebrew. Hebrew scribes were much more meticulous -- careful not to use extraneous material -- in their transcription of manuscripts than were Greek scribes - so these Hebrew manuscripts are likely to be more reliable then the Greek manuscripts], there is a very different ending to Matthew 28:19 which reads: "You go and teach them to carry out all the things that I have commanded you forever" [See Dr. James D. Tabor, A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew ]. Eusebius, in at least 18 citations of Matthew 28:19, always wrote it this way: "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you." (see Conybeare). This reading would certainly be more in line with the Bible's "in Christ" motif.

You do not have to go to the ancient manuscripts in order to deduce that the text, as it reads in most Bibles, does not fit the Bible's Theology. Nor do you have to agree with my position concerning the Godhead to recognize that this text does not really fit into the Bible's teaching about baptism. Please note that I am not suggesting that Christ didn't give the great commission, only that the words that He used are unlikely to be those found in most of the translations we have of Matthew 28:19. If Christ gave the commission to go and "baptize" then it would only make sense that His words would be in harmony with the rest of the Bible's teachings regarding baptism.

The Bible clearly states that we are baptized into Jesus Christ (not into the Father or the Holy Spirit): Rom. 6:3,4 "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." Gal. 3:26,27 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (KJV). "What are you waiting for now? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away as you call on his name." (ISV). Acts 10:48 "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

You will never find any deviation from this except as it is recorded in Matthew 28:19! Why is that? If Jesus actually said the disciples should be baptizing in the name of "the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit" then why don't we find this being done? This is a very serious question and it demands a serious and straightforward answer.

Jesus could not have commanded the disciples to baptize people in the name of [into] the Holy Spirit for if we are baptized into the Holy Spirit what need would there be to be baptized with the Holy Spirit? Jesus could not have told His disciples to baptize people into the Holy Spirit quite simply because this is not a baptism that the disciples were to perform [If Jesus could not have told His disciples to baptize men into the Holy Spirit, then it is highly unlikely that He would have told them to baptize men into the Father either - especially given His emphatic statement: I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. (Jn. 14:6).]. We are told that Jesus is the one who will baptize us with the Holy Spirit - that this is the baptism of Jesus. John the Baptist said: "I baptized you with water, He [Christ] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit"(Mark 1:8 cf. Mat. 3:11 & Lk. 3:16). "…this [Jesus] is the One who baptizes in [with] the Holy Spirit" (Jn. 1:33). Since this is obviously a separate baptism - a baptism in which we are immersed [baptized] with [or in] the Holy Spirit - a baptism that Christ is to perform - then Jesus could not have told the disciples to baptize people into the name of the Holy Spirit.

Once we understand who Jesus is and how He has provided us with Salvation, we are to be baptized into Him. He will then baptize us with His Holy Spirit. Christ's Holy Spirit is the gift we receive when we accept Him and are baptized into Him. In Galatians 3:27 we read: "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." To be "clothed with Christ" is to be baptized "with the Holy Spirit." We "put on" Christ through the reception of His Spirit in our mind and heart. "He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us" (1 Jn. 3:24). 1 John 4:13 makes all of this perfectly clear: "By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit."

So the prescribed order is to learn of Christ, be baptized into Christ, and then to receive Christ's Spirit. "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38). While there are some exceptions to this order (see Acts 10:47), the normally prescribed order is repentance, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Spirit - and there is a reason for this order.

Jesus said to "go and teach" or "make disciples" of all nations. Teach them what? Make them disciples of whom? We are to teach men of Christ in who's name is the "forgiveness of sins" (See Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38 & 10:43) -- for"there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).Jesus said: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me" (John 14:6). We must be taught (learn) that we are in a lost condition and that there is only one hope for us - the person of Jesus Christ who gave Himself for us that we might not die but have eternal life (a whole HOST of Biblical Texts testify to this – see Jn. 3:14-17“... the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.” Jn. 6:53-58 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”Jn. 10:28 “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Jn. 17:2 “... thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” Rom. 5:21 “That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1Jn. 5:11-13 “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe onthe name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1Jn. 5:20 “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” Jude 1:21“Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” ---- need I cite more?). We must be persuaded to place our faith in the Son of God and we must learn to depend upon Him for the power to overcome and to live a new life in the power of His Spirit. We must repent (die to "self") and make a public proclamation of that repentance and of our acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior, Lord, and God. That public proclamation is made through the ordinance of baptism - in which is symbolized our acceptance of Christ and His sacrifice, our death to self, and our resurrection to a new life in Christ – and a life powered by the Spirit of Christ! Paul stated it very clearly in this way: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Galatians 2:20).

Baptism is an absolute imperative for all those who are mentally and physically capable of making such a public proclamation for to deny it is to deny Christ and to have no part in Him. To neglect such a proclamation is to neglect (or deny) the eternal price paid by Christ for our Salvation, and"how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (Heb. 2:3). To refuse baptism is really a "public proclamation" in itself - that we do not accept Christ's death on our behalf and that we do not accept Him as our Lord and Savior. Refusing to repent (die to self) and be baptized (being buried with Christ and resurrected to a new life in Christ) is to remain "in the flesh" or in our "sin." And the Bible tells us that this is to remain dead in sin:"For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit [Christ] is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him" (Romans 8:6-10).

The Bible is very clear about the fact that Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. No one need be confused about this: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). This is the whole theme of the Bible. Period. Once we understand this, we are to show our acceptance of Him by being baptized into Him. This is why I believe that Jesus did not instruct His disciples to baptize new disciples into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He instructed them to baptize men into HIS name – for "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).

We need to be baptized into the name of Jesus and not into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: because when we are baptized into the threefold name we are being baptized into a misconception. We are being baptized into a false belief about God, about Jesus Christ, about the Holy Spirit, and about the Plan of Salvation. What I am saying is not sacrilege. Nor is it heresy. I am not diminishing the value or the persons of the Father or the Holy Spirit in any way. Nor am I suggesting that the Father and the Holy Spirit do not play an important part in our salvation. I am simply saying that doing what the Lord has commanded and in the way that God has ordained is what we, as Christians, ought to be doing. When we are baptized into the threefold name (even ignorantly) we are being baptized into the traditions of men and not of God. Jesus said: "BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN" (Mark 7:7 & Matthew 15:9). I don't want my worship, or my service to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to be "in vain" - do you? [Note: I DO believe that in “the times of this ignorance God winked” at it (Acts 17:30) – and that there have been millions of True Christians who have been ignorantly, and innocently baptized in the “Three-fold” name and that they are NOT being held accountable for their ignorance. But, if you are reading this study, you can no longer claim that innocent ignorance! The truth is unfolding right before your eyes. If you have been baptized in the three-fold name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit you NOW need to take the increased light provided here and be RE-BAPTIZED in the Name of Christ alone!].

Paul said that there is “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). Now I ask you: WHO is the “One Lord”? Is it not JESUS CHRIST? WHAT is the “One Faith”? Is it not faith in the SON OF GOD (Jesus Christ)? And WHAT is the “One Baptism”? Is it not a baptism “into Christ Jesus” and “into His death”? (see Rom. 6:34 and Gal. 3:26,27). To suggest that there is “One Lord (the Lord Jesus Christ), one faith (faith in the Lord Jesus Christ), one baptism (baptism in the name[s] of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit)” is completely nonsensical completely destroys the continuity of Paul's statement in Eph. 4:5, and completely misses the mark concerning the Biblical Theme that “CHRIST is all, and in all” (Col.3:11); that “in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28); and that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)! In Mar 16:16 Jesus says: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” – Believe What? Isn't it a belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?! Baptized into Whom? Is it not baptism into Christ Jesus?!

I believe that one of the reasons we have received so little of the Holy Spirit is because we have never truly been baptized into Jesus Christ. That is to say, that we have not had a clear conception of who He is or what He has done in order to make Salvation available to us. Or, as Mrs. White puts it,"because we are so far behind our privileges" (RH: October 8, 1889; par. 2). I am not suggesting that there is some kind of magic in the manner of our baptism [There is no 'magic' in being baptized by immersion - but this is the only manner of baptism that demonstrates our understanding of the significance of this ordinance. We can be baptized by immersion and still not be baptized into Christ! There is nothing magical about the method, but the method is important because it demonstrates our understanding of the significance of the act - and it demonstrates our commitment to doing things as God has prescribed, as opposed to how we may have been taught or might like to do things ourselves]. I am suggesting that the manner of our baptism is what shows our understanding of, and our commitment to, God's Will and our willingness to demonstrate that understanding and commitment in the way that He has prescribed. And just as Baptism by IMMERSION is the ONLY method that accurately conveys and signifies the TRUE MEANING of Baptism – So, Baptism in the Name of CHRIST(alone) is the Only method that conveys and signifies the TRUE NATURE of WHO we are being “Baptized” into and what that “Baptism” actually MEANS. It is also the only method that remains True to the overwhelming Biblical evidence that Baptism was conducted “In the name of Jesus Christ alone” in Biblical times.

The Bible is Crystal Clear regarding the Meaning and Method of Baptism: "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin. But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him;knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3-11).

This text could NOT be any clearer regarding the SIGNIFICANCE and MEANING behind the "rite" of Baptism -- and it is undeniably CLEAR that the Significance of Baptism is tied directly to CHRIST (not to the Father or the HS). Christ is the ONLY one who "Died" and was "Buried" and then "Resurrected". Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit ever "Died". Neither of them were "Buried". And Neither of them was ever "Resurrected". The whole rite of Baptism holds meaning ONLY as it is applied DIRECTLY and SOLELY to CHRIST! ”For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ" (Gal. 1:27). The argument in 1 Cor. 1:13 is pertinent here: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" The Same argument could be applied to the Father or the HS: "Was the Father or the Holy Spirit CRUCIFIED for you? – Or – were you baptized into the name of the Father and/or the Holy Spirit?" It is VERY clear from ALL the examples of the Apostles "Baptizing" --- that they ALL understood the SIGNIFICANCE of the act and that this act centers in CHRIST (and Not in the Father or the Holy Spirit). Since all of the Apostles "Baptized" in the name of Jesus it seems to me that it behooves us to do the same. Furthermore, it is ONLY by performing this rite in its Proper Manner that we illustrate and evidence that we actually UNDERSTAND what the Significance of the "rite" is and what our actions are truly indicative of. Failure to Understand THIS undermines the whole meaning behind Baptism and reduces it to an insignificant Ritual. Perhaps it is because we really haven't understood the significance and meaning behind Baptism that so many of us "take on the NAME of Christ" but never end up "Living the Life of Christ" in our daily lives. It all comes down to the fact that CHRIST IS OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS!!! And that it is only through HIM that "we Live and Breathe and Have our Being". I really don't know how to express this in any clearer language. If you choose to ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence on this subject, that is your prerogative. But PLEASE understand this: Until we intelligently understand the will of God in the person of Jesus Christ we will never be prepared to fully partake of His Spirit. Given the overwhelming Biblical evidence concerning the actual meaning and significance of Baptism, as well as the Biblical evidence that the Apostles and the early Church consistently baptized in the name of Jesus Christ alone, all leaves me to conclude that the baptismal “Formula” as stated in Matthew 28:19 simply CANNOT be Accurate and must have been the result of a “Change” or an “Insertion” of the words “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” into the text of Matthew 28:19. Below is more proof that this is the case. I leave you to decide for yourself.

Additional Evidence of the “CHANGE” in the text of Matthew 28:19 is listed below:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 2, 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 2nd century.” NOTE also: "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."...Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY, pp. 50-51.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH edition, (1910), Vol 2, Pg 365“The Trinitarian formula and triune 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 wide spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.”

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA, 11TH Edition, Volume 3, page 365-366 – “Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century.” SEE also p. 82 of this volume: “Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”

CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, page 53 -- “The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century.”

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Volume 2, page 377 –“Christian baptism was administered using the words, ‘in the name of Jesus.’” See also p. 389 - “Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.” And p. 378 –“The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.”

SCHAFF – HERZOG RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA, Volume 1, page 435– The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF BIBLE, page 88 – “It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.”

INTERPRETERS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, (1962) I, 351 “The evidence … suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’.”

A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Otto Heick), (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 Ghost.”

CANNEY’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS, (1970), Pg 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.”

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CHURCH FATHERS, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143 "Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin.”

 Through the Holy Spirit (a fitting title for the divine attributes of Christ), His divine attributes (character=thoughts and feelings) would ever remain alive and would be used to impart Christ's life and righteousness to all those who accept Him as their Savior. "The influence of the Holy Spirit is the life of Christ in the soul. We do not now see Christ and speak to Him, but His Holy Spirit is just as near us in one place as another. It works in and through every one who receives Christ. Those who know the indwelling of the Spirit reveal the fruits of the Spirit,-love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith'" (Bible Echo, June 17, 1901; par. 6).

Christ was totally dependent upon His Father's Spirit"our Saviour relied upon His heavenly Father for wisdom and strength to resist and overcome the tempter. The Spirit of His Heavenly Father animated and regulated His life. He was sinless." (The Youth's Instructor: February 1, 1873)

Just as WE are to be totally dependant upon the Spirit of Christ (the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of Wisdom aka = The "Holy" Spirit!

  • "The Holy Spirit is Himself [Christ] divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent." (MS #1084 [MR vol. 14; p. 23, par. 3]).

  • "He might have helped His human nature to withstand the inroads of disease by pouring from His divine nature vitality and undecaying vigor to the human. But He humbled Himself to man's nature…God became man!" (RH: Sept. 4, 1900. [SDA BC 7A; p. 452, par. 4]). [Note: This text reveals that the "human nature" and the "divine (Spirit) nature" of Christ are separated. It also shows that Christ could have used His divine nature to overcome temptation (this was Christ's biggest and most difficult temptation and the one the Devil sought to convince Christ to do) but, as we saw earlier, if Christ had used His divine power-we would have been lost].

  • "The influence of the Holy Spirit is the life of Christ in the soul. We do not now see Christ and speak to Him, but His Holy Spirit is just as near us in one place as another. It works in and through every one who receives Christ. Those who know the indwelling of the Spirit reveal the fruits of the Spirit,-'love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith'" (Bible Echo: June 17, 1901; par. 6).

  • "There must be a power working from within, a new life from above, before man can be changed from sin to holiness. That power is Christ. His grace alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness" (ST: May 28, 1902; par. 3). 

  • He"became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) 
  • Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature." (RH May 19, 1904; par. 3).

    "Oh, that those who have so little spiritual life would realize that eternal life can be granted only to those who become partakers of the divine nature…"(9T p. 188).


  • "A healthy Christian is one who has Christ formed within, the hope of glory…. He who has sound faith finds that Christ is the life of the soul, that he is in him as a well of water springing up unto everlasting life, and he delights to conform every power of the soul to the obedience of his Lord. The Holy Spirit with its vivifying influence ever keeps such a soul in the love of God" (RH: December 11, 1894; par. 2).

  • "Jesus is waiting to breathe upon all his disciples, and give them the inspiration ofhis sanctifying spirit, and transfuse the vital influence from himself to his people…Christ is to live in his human agents, and work through their faculties, and act through their capabilities. Their will must be submitted to his will, they must act with his spirit, that it may be no more they that live, but Christ that liveth in them. Jesus is seeking to impress upon them the thought that in giving his Holy Spirit he is giving to them the glory which the Father has given him, that he and his people may be one in God" (ST: October 3, 1892; par. 4).

  • "Christ gives them the breath of His own Sprit, the life of His own Life" (DA p. 827, par. 3).

  • "The Holy Spirit is the breath of life in the soul. The impartation of the Spirit is the impartation of the life of Christ. It imbues the receiver with the attributes of Christ" (DA p. 805, par. 3).

  • "They have one God and one Saviour; and one Spirit-the Spirit of Christ - is to bring unity into their ranks" (9T p. 189, par. 3).

  • "Christ has made every provision for us to be strong. He has given us His Holy Spirit, whose office is to bring to our remembrance all the promises that Christ has made, that we may have peace and a sweet sense of forgiveness. If we will but keep our eyes fixed on the Saviour and trust in His power, we shall be filled with a sense of security; for the righteousness of Christ will become our righteousness" (My Life Today, p. 45, par. 5).

In Christ, through Christ, Christ in us! Christ has made it possible for God to be "over all and through all and in all" (Eph. 4:6) . May we never forget that; "The great gift of salvation has been placed within our reach at an infinite costto the Father and the Son. To neglect salvation, is to neglect the knowledge of the Father and of the Son whom God hath sent in order that man might become a partaker of the divine nature, and thus, with Christ, an heir of all things" (RH: March 10, 1891; par.2).

EGW: "But although Christ's glory was for a time veiled and eclipsed by His assuming humanity, yet He did not cease to be God when He became man...The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one." SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p.1129.


"It may be objected, If the Father and the Son are two distinct beings, do you not, in worshipping the Son and calling him God, break the first commandment of the decalogue? "No; it is the Father's will 'That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.' We cannot break the commandment and dishonor God by obeying him. The Fathers says of the Son, 'Let all the angels of God worship him.' Should angels refuse to worship the Son, they would rebel against the Father. Children inherit the name of their Father. The Son of God 'hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than' the angels. That name is the name of his Father. The Father says to the Son, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.' Heb.1. The Son is called 'The mighty God.' Isa. 9:6. And when he comes again to earth his waiting people will exclaim, 'This is our God.' Isa. 25:9. 


When Jesus had opened before his disciples the fact that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer and die at the hands of the chief priests and scribes, Peter had presumptuously contradicted his Master, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee.” He could not conceive it possible that the Son of God should be put to death. Satan suggested to his mind (Peter's mind) that if Jesus was the Son of God he could not die. (Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, page 231) 

"It is often asserted that this exalted one came to earth and inhabited a human body, which he left in the hour of its deathBut the Scriptures teach that this exalted one was the identical person that died on the cross; and in this consists the immense sacrifice made for man—the wondrous love of God and condescension of his only Son. John says, “The Word of life,” “that which was from the beginning,” “which was with the Father,” that exalted, pre-existent One “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.” 1 John 1:1, 2. (J. H. Waggoner, 1884, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, pages 152-154) 

Just like it's OUR "human (carnal) nature" that has to die, through the death of Christ's sacrifice for us. We claim as our very own, Christ's death/sacrifice for us. It's the atonement for our "carnal" nature.

"Pointing to the palms of His hands, pierced by the fury and prejudice of wicked men, He says of us, "I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands" [Isaiah 49:16]. The Father bows in recognition of the price paid for humanity, and the angels approach the cross of Calvary with reverence." -- Manuscript 21, 1895.

Satan suggested to his mind (Peter's mind) that if Jesus was the Son of God he could not die. (Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, page 231) 

I do not want "Satan" suggesting to our minds today - that Jesus as the Son of God could not die completely for us.

"he left in the hour of its deathThis is spiritualism - a soul winging it's way to Heaven or hanging around somewhere - in purgatory, for example. This is another prime example why believing in three gods trinity or tritheistic flavors or versions of God IS so wrong and fatal (upon understanding) to eternal life.

Ellen White never rebuked J. H. Waggoner for his position, in fact she wanted all the pioneers in the work to be published as truth for TODAY. This is definitely a non-trinitarian non-tritheistic doctrine - the truth about God and His Son = the pure Gospel = sin sick healing truth - truth that will make those who believe and are doers of it Holy/perfect like it's author. Truth is perpetual. It does not change or take on false traditions as hitchhikers to sooth the conscience.


Remember the Command?

“Let the aged men who were pioneers in our work speak plainly, and let those who are dead speak also, by the reprinting of their articles in our periodicals.”—Manuscript 62, 1905, cited in “The Integrity of the Sanctuary Message.” 

“We are to REPEAT THE WORDS of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden 
treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. . . . The word given me is, Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced.”—Review and Herald, May 25, 1905.

Sister White says, "When we want a deep problem to study, let us fix our minds on the most marvelous thing that ever took place in earth or heaven—the incarnation of the Son of God." That I May Know Him, p. 25.2S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, p. 904.6

  1. The Holy Spirit is "His own Spirit, the life of His own life." "He has given us His Holy Spirit" and "if we will but keep our eyes fixed on the Saviour and trust in His power…the righteousness of Christ will become our righteousness" (My Life Today, p. 45, par. 5).

  2. "The great gift of salvation has been placed within our reach at an infinite cost to the Father and the Son" (RH: March 10, 1891; par. 2) - and "at aninconceivable cost to the Son of God" (ST: January 6, 1887; par. 3).

Christ's perfect humanity is the same that man may have through connection with Christ. As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties, He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh, He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. He breathed the very air man must breathe. He trod our earth as man. He had reason, conscience, memory, will, and affections of the human soul which was united with His divine nature. {16MR 181.4}


Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. His finite nature was pure and spotless, but the divine nature that led Him to say to Philip, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" also, was not humanized; neither was humanity deified by the blending or union of the two natures; each retained its essential character and properties. {16MR 182.1}

But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. {16MR 182.2}

The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings. {16MR 182.3}


But the facts of this history are not fable, but a living, acting, experience. [To deny this] would rob Jesus of His greatest glory--allegiance to God--which enshrouded Him as a garment in this world on the field of battle with the relentless foe, and He is not reckoned with the transgressor. He descended in His humiliation to be tempted as man would be tempted, and His nature was that of man, capable of yielding to temptation. His very purity and holiness were assailed by a fallen foe, the very one that became corrupted and then was ejected from heaven. How deeply and keenly must Christ have felt this humiliation. {16MR 183.1}

Both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy make it very clear that the Holy Spirit is in fact Christ's Spirit and not some abstruse, obscure, non-descript third person of the Godhead. However, proving that the Holy Spirit is Jesus' Spirit is meaningless if we don't understand thesignificance of Christ's sacrifice in the giving of His Spirit. Why would Christ sacrifice His Spirit? For what purpose did He make this sacrifice?"Without the Spirit of God a knowledge of His word is of no avail. The theory of truth, unaccompanied by the Holy Spirit, cannot quicken the soul or sanctify the heart. One may be familiar with the commands and promises of the Bible; but unless the Spirit of God sets the truth home, the character will not be transformed. Without the enlightenment of the Spirit, men will not be able to distinguish truth from error, and they will fall under the masterful temptations of Satan" (Christ Object Lessons, p. 408, par. 3).

Most Christians have at least some understanding of the necessity of Christ's death on the Cross. They realize that Christ came to pay thepenalty for Sin on our behalf and that His death has made it possible for us to be reconciled to God and restored to a right standing with Him. Most Christians believe that Christ's death has granted us eternal life. But this is not the truth. Christ's death has made it possible for us to gain eternal life, but His death has not insured our attaining it. Christ "died" for all men (1 Jn. 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Pet. 3:18) - yet "all men" are not going to be saved! There are going to be many people who believe that they are "Christians" who shall never enter into His Kingdom (See Mat. 7:21-23). Many of these people will have believed (even accepted) that Christ died for their sins but will remain unchanged by that fact - they will refuse to be transformed into His likeness and He will declare to them: "I never knew you, depart from Me" (Ibid). Sadly, there will be many Seventh-day Adventists in this group (see Rev. 3:14-17).

The truth is that "Justification" is simply not enough. It would be enough if you were to die immediately after your acceptance of Christ's substitutionary death on your behalf (like the thief on the cross) but this is never going to be enough for those who continue living or who will be alive at His Second coming. There has to be something more in the life of the believer than justification. Christ said that we must be "born again." He taught that there must be a new life created within us transforming us into His image: "There must be a power working from within, a new life from above, before man can be changed from sin to holiness. That power is Christ. His grace alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness" (ST: May 28, 1902; par. 3). We must "grow in the grace …. until we allattain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man ['Perfect man' KJV], to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18; Eph. 4:13) . This process of growth - having Christ formed within us - is called Sanctification, and is an absolute necessityfor our receiving Eternal Life. Both justification (the forgiveness of sins) and sanctification (the removal of Sin) are essential in the life of the believer. Justification was accomplished at the Cross, when Christ took on our sins and paid the penalty for our transgression. This work of Christ is "laid to our account" through the simple act of accepting Christ's sacrifice on our behalf - without any work of our own being involved.

Sanctification, however, is not the work of a moment-it is the work of a lifetime. It is still Christ's work, but it is accomplished in the life of the believer throughout their lifetime. It is the ongoing process of Christ's work in our minds and in our hearts that transforms us into His image and enables us to live a life of obedience and victory. This work of Christ (sanctification) is imparted to us (not just laid to our account)-that is, it is implanted in us in a way that is both very real and very powerful. The words of inspiration have summarized this truth beautifully: "The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed. The righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted. The first is our title to heaven; the second is our fitnessfor heaven" (RH: June 4, 1895; par. 7) . Both are the Lord's doing: "both our title to heaven [Justification] and our fitness for it [Sanctification] are found in the righteousness of Christ" (DA: p. 300, par. 1) .

HOW the Lord accomplishes both of these things is explained through the mystery of the incarnation-through our Lord's sacrifice in literallygiving His Life for us. In taking our humanity and dying in our place, He has accomplished the first (Justification). In sacrificing His Spirit for us, He accomplishes the second (Sanctification).

Christ came in order that we might have "eternal life," (Jn. 3:16,36) but"eternal life can be granted only to those who become partakers of the divine nature" (9T p. 188) This was Christ's ultimate purpose in sacrificing both body and soul (Spirit) for us ("This Comforter is the Holy Spirit,--the soul of his life, the efficacy of his church, the light and life of the world. With his Spirit Christ sends a reconciling influence and a power that takes away sin. In the gift of the Spirit, Jesus gave to man the highest good that heaven could bestow." (RH May 19, 1904; par. 1.)). "Christ expects that men will become partakers of His divine naturewhile in this world" (5T p. 731, par. 1) . We know that it is "Through the Spirit[that] the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature" (RH May 19, 1904; par. 3)and so, if Christ expects us to partake of His divine nature and partaking of His divine nature is accomplished through the "Spirit", we can be reasonably sure that the "Spirit" that implants Christ's divine nature in us is, in fact, Christ's Spirit -- it IS His Divine Nature"Christ gives them the breath of His own Spirit, the life of His own Life" (DA p. 827, par. 3). "The Holy Spirit is the breath of life in the soul. The impartation of the Spirit is the impartation of thelife of Christ. It imbues the receiver with the attributes of Christ" (DA p. 805, par. 3) .

Now maybe it is just me, but doesn't it seem just a little bit ludicrous to think that some other member of the Godhead (someone other than Christ) would be responsible for imparting the "attributes of Christ" in us? Christ is not dead! Both His humanity and His divinity are very much alive. Why would anyone other than Christ be needed to impart Christ's nature, Christ's attributes, Christ's character, Christ's victory, Christ's power, or Christ's life in us? Why would someone, anyone, other than Christ be needed to make His sacrifice efficacious? Christpromised thatHe would "come" to us - that He would not leave us "comfortless" - thatHe would be here "in our midst" - that He would be "with" us "always, even unto the end of the world" (Jn. 14:18; Mat. 18:20 cf. Joel 2:27; Mat. 28:20 [KJV]). How could anyone but Christ make His presence a reality for us?

If our eternal destiny hinges on our being partakers of the divine nature, then we need to understand clearly what it means to be "partakers of His divine nature"! (5T p. 731, par. 1). Does being a partaker of His divine nature mean that we will simply become "good" people? Does it mean that we are only to become "nice," honest, loving, trustworthy people? No! It means much more than that! Certainly we will be all of these things because God is all of these things. But God is much more than just a nice, loving person - and we are to become like Christ in ways that go far beyond being honest, or trustworthy, or even loving and nice.

When Christ was here on this earth, He was very nearly stoned to death for claiming to be God. You can read about this in John 10:24-38. The Jews were very angry with Jesus because He claimed to be "One" with the Father (vs. 30) and "The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him" (vs. 31). Christ asked them for which good work they were stoning Him (vs. 32), and they replied: "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (vs. 33) . Jesus response to them is not only interesting; it is also full of meaning and truth (a truth that we have been reticent to believe). Jesus said: "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'" (vs. 34) .

Christ's mission to redeem man involves much more than simply "forgiving" us our sins. Christ's purpose in sacrificing Himself goes far beyond that. Christ sacrificed Himself not only to restore man to hisoriginal image, but to "recreate" man in His image. Christ intends toelevate man to a state above that of even the most glorious Angels in heaven! "…Christ gave up His life for the human race. This sacrifice was offeredfor the purpose of restoring man to his original perfection; yea, more. It was offered to give him an entire transformation of character, making him more than a conqueror. Those who in the strength of Christ overcome the great enemy of God and man, will occupy a position in the heavenly courts above angels who have never fallen" (General Conference Bulletins: April 1, 1899; par. 2). "That Christ should take human nature, and by a life of humiliation elevate man in the scale of moral worth with God; that He should carry His adopted nature to the throne of God, and there present His children to the Father, to have conferred upon them an honour exceeding that conferred upon the angels,--this is the marvel of the heavenly universe, the mystery into which angels desire to look. This is love that melts the sinner's heart" (Australasian Union Conference Record, June 6, 1900; par.15) . So what stately position and honor could be conferred upon man that would make them above angels who have never sinned? Christ intends that we shall literally become "sons of God" (not merely one of His creations -- Rom. 8:14, 19; 9:26; Gal. 3:26, 4:6; Mat. 5:9; Lk. 20:36). He designs that we shall "be a counterpart of God" (Healthful Living, p. 10, par. 2) . The Father intends that we shall be "joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17) --reigning with Christ (2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 20:6) and sitting with Him upon His Throne! (Rev. 3:21).

Christ intends to so fully recreate Himself in His people that they will be elevated to a status equal to His own-the incarnated Christ. This is notmy idea-it is the position set forth in the Scriptures. Paul said: "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29 KJV) . Remember, however, that Paul also made it clear that "the promises" were made to Abraham's "seed" - not "as in many, but in one" - Christ Jesus (See Gal. 3: 16). By becoming a "partaker of the divine nature" - by allowing Christ to recreate and reproduce Himself in us - webecome part of that "seed" (which is Christ Jesus) to whom the promises were given, and thus we become "heirs according to the promise." According to the Word of God, by partaking of the divine nature, we are to attain "the measure of the stature of fullness of Christ- and through Christ,"a perfect man" (Eph. 4:13 KJV) . This will be the experience of the remnantpeople of God.

I know that there are those who will read into this statement more than is intended and so, I will qualify it with this explanation: We shall ever be indebted to Christ for making a way possible for us to be forgiven and for the power to be like Him. There will never come a time when this will not be so and in this way Christ shall forever be supreme. Still, the fact remains that Christ will have a "remnant" who will so totally be partakers of His nature that they will literally be like Him. They will be included in the councils of God and will be responsible with Christ (joint heirs) for carrying out the Father's Will and for executing His commands. This group will be, in the eyes of the Angels, the redeemed, and the unfallen worlds -- rulers with Christ throughout the universe. We shall not be"God" - we will never be independently divine - but we will so fully partake of Christ's divine nature that we shall be like Him - a perfect blending of the human and the divine. "In Christ" we shall participate in all the privileges that our His - including being able to "see God" face to face! (Rev. 21:22-24) [Note: It is very doubtful that all of the redeemed will "see" God the Father face to face. There is a special group of people that will have this honor and these are described as the 144,000. These chosen ones will so fully partake of the nature of Christ that they will be allowed into the very presence of the Father. In 1T p. 69, speaking of heaven after the second coming of Christ, we see the Temple-God's dwelling place-and Jesus declares that "Only the 144,000 enter this place." In fact, the names of the 144,000 are described as engraved in tables of stone in letters of gold within this Temple. These people, I believe, are the ones who will actually be "reigning" with Christ.]

The prophet says that: "God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and has carried the same into the highest heaven" (DA: p. 25, par. 3) . She does not say that God has adopted the human race-like we might "adopt" a child into our family. She says, "God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son." That means that "GOD" (The Father) has taken the form of human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. God became "man" in Jesus Christ, and as a result, through the impartation of Christ's divine nature, man may become a member of the Godhead.

In Matthew 22:2-14 we find a marriage ceremony described that is about to take place. Commenting on this marriage in the book Christ Object Lessons, Ellen White states: "By the marriage is represented the union of humanity with divinity" (COL: p. 307, par. 1) . This describes Christs' union ofHis humanity with divinity, which He has now made it possible for us to experience through our marriage to Him-through our partaking of His divine nature"Divinity and humanity were united in Christ, that he might reveal to us God's purpose, and bring man into close communion with himself. This union will enable us to overcome the enemy; for through faith in Christ we shall havedivine power" (RH: December 6, 1892; par. 2) .

The marriage analogy is really a very good one for describing what our place and function will be when we are married to Christ through partaking of His divine nature. We can look back to the Garden of Eden for a deeper understanding of how this marriage is supposed to work. When Christ married Adam and Eve, it was His intent that Eve (Adam'swife) would be in every way Adam's equal. Adam was her husband, and as such commanded final responsibility and authority over the family, but Eve was his equal in fulfilling the purposes and the "Will" of God for the human family. So it is with us when we are married to Christ. He is our husband and holds final responsibility and authority over us, and yet -- we are His bride, His wife, His equal -- a partner with Him in the administration of all of His creations. We are responsible to our husband, but we have also been given responsibility for His family, and share in the duty and honor of that privilege. What honor is this! If that doesn't thrill your heart then something is desperately wrong!

But with that honor comes great responsibility - "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required" (Luke 12:48) . The husband, and the family, can never be dishonored. Our love and allegiance must always be to our husband - Christ Jesus. Any infidelity, and whoring after our own selfish desires, will never be tolerated. Our loving submission andobedience to Him, "with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow," (James 1:17) will ever be the evidence that we have been partakers of His divine nature and that we honor Him as our husband, Lord, and Father of all. Christ intends that we shall be so fully partakers of His divine nature that we shall be in every way what He has become - we shall be "Gods" (John 10:34). He has made it possible for us to be grafted into the Godhead!

Many of you may be "gasping" at this point-thinking that I have completely overstepped my bounds-that I am being "presumptuous"-that this isunthinkable! We don't like to talk of such things-but why? This is a marvelous truth! Hard to comprehend, to be sure, but it is truthnonetheless. I am acutely aware that: "Truth lies close to the track of presumption" (Letter 8, 1895 [SDA BC vol. 5; p. 1128]) , but does that mean that we should not approach the truth? Remember that it is "the TRUTH" that lies close to the track of presumption, and we must dare to know the trutheven though there is some danger involved-for "the truth will make you free" (John 8:32). We do not need to fear the truth - we need to fearpresumption and error - but let's not get so fearful of presumption that we fear to approach the truth! Could we become so afraid of error that we will not embrace the truth when it is staring us in the face? And if we do not embrace the truth, does our enemy not overcome us? We mustembrace the truth and leave off the error. We must let the truth empower us, and leave the error for the son's of perdition - for those who would rather be damned than come to the light. We are to be grafted into the Godhead and we are to partake fully of the divine nature - with all that that entails.

    "Though he presented infinite truth, he left many things unsaid that he might have said, because even his disciples were not able to comprehend them…Jesus was the Life giver, the Teacher sent of God to provide salvation for a lost world, and to save men in spite of all Satan's temptations and lying deceptions. He himself wasthe gospel. In his teachings he clearly presented the great plan devised for the redemption of the race. Divinity had united with humanity for the purpose ofuniting humanity with divinity, that through Christ man might become a partaker of the divine nature" (RH: July 7, 1896; par. 5).

Let me illustrate another way, and leave you with a balanced and "inspired" view of this truth. We are told "Error draws its life from the truth of God" (RH: October 22, 1895; par. 3) . When the Devil told Eve that she would be like God-there was truth in that statement. The devil was saying the same thing that Jesus is saying. The problem is that the Devil blended this truth with error and deception. While he was telling the truth when he said "you will be like God" (Gen. 3:5) , he was suggesting that the way Eve was to become like God was through disobedience - through separation from God! What a Lie! What a preposterous idea! "You will become like God by separating from Him, by not trusting Him; ignore what He says and trust in yourself." Hogwash! This was never the way God intended to accomplish this (even though every Religion in the World - including Atheism - has sought to "be God through their own works)!

Our minds, our thoughts, and our actions are to be brought intosubjection to the mind of Christ. When this becomes a reality for us, Christ will subject all things to us-in Him. Paul made it clear that the one to whom all things are "subjected" is beholding (or in subjectionthemselves) to the One who has put all things in subjection to him (see 1 Cor. 15:27). This was true for Christ, and it is true for us. Therefore, there will never come a time when we will not be beholding to, and in subjection to Christ! The "equality" that we are to have with Christ isderived from Christ, and this will always be the case, so there can be no talk of our being Christ (or God) inherent in and of ourselves. The fact that God has made provision for us to be partakers of His divine naturedoes not mean that we are God. It means that God intends to share His "being" with us - a reality that leaves us forever beholding to Him. We can only "partake" of that which already exists and of that which is offered to us. So while we are to be partakers of His divine nature and thereby raised to the status of Christ, and therefore "Gods" - we shall never be Christ and we shall never be God. Rather, it will be "Christ in us" that will be our only boast to honor.

The Devil knew that God intended man to become a partaker of His divine nature in such a way as to elevate man above all God's other created beings. This is why Satan hates man so much, and why he has sought to prevent this from happening. When the Devil came to Eve in the garden, he did not try to deny the truth that man was to become "like God," but he did try to prevent man from realizing this honor by introducing a false way for them to achieve this. He deceived man, caused his fall, and brought upon him the curse of death (everlasting destruction).

When Satan realized that Christ was to offer Himself in man's place and would continue to make man a partaker of the divine nature, he wasfurious and he set out to prevent Christ from accomplishing His mission. He has continually sought to get man to depend upon himself and uponhis own works to gain his acceptance with God and whatever favors that acceptance might bring. And he has continued to propagate the rule of his own government - "self-exaltation". The same lie he used for Eve, he has used for God's remnant people, only in a different form. And, sadly, he has been very successful with it. He has caused many of us to reject the idea that we are literally to be "partakers of Christ's nature" by getting us to view His Word and His promises through the eyes of our own wisdom. He has told us that we shall be a partaker of the divine nature -we shall be like Christ (which is true), but he has suggested that the waywe are to do this is through our own efforts, through our own strength, through our own obedience - that is, through our own works!

Tragically, many of us have swallowed this lie hook-line-and sinker. The truth is that we can only receive the righteousness of Christ and be partakers of His Holy Spirit by coming into close communion with Him, day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment. Our relationship with Him is what qualifies us to be a partaker of His divine nature-not our attempts at behavior modification. Our very motives must be changed and brought into alignment with those of Christ. As we come to have an intimate relationship with Him, He abides in us through His Spirit and sin is driven out."In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin" (DA p. 107, par. 4). "So long as we are united to Him by faith, sin has no more dominion over us" (DA p. 123) . Behaviors, then, become the fruit of our relationship with Him - not the other way around.

We can only be prepared and qualified to receive power and glory through a complete surrender to the Will of God in which "self" is lost and our focus is solely upon person of Christ. Our mind, our thoughts and our will, must be brought into the subjection of Christ. There can be no thread of self will or self-interest left in us. And the only thing that can enable us to "lose self" and qualify us to partake of the glory and thepower of God is the "righteousness of Christ." His righteousness alonewill enable us to wield the glory and the power that God wishes to grant us. Only Christ's righteousness can insure that we will forever and always use the gift of God's power for the sole benefit of others. Only Christ's righteousness can keep "self" in check and enable us to use the power of God to His glory. So, exactly how are we to appropriate the gift of Christ's righteousness? Must we work hard at achieving it? Are we to try to reproduce it through our own efforts? Have we only to imitate it? BEWARE THE DEVIL!

  • "The Christian's life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but atransformation of nature" (DA p. 172).
  • "There are those who profess to serve God, while they rely upon their own effortsto obey His law, to form a right character, and secure salvation. Their hearts are not moved by any deep sense of the love of Christ, but they seek to perform the duties of the Christian life as that which God requires of them in order to gain heaven.Such religion is worth nothing. When Christ dwells in the heart, the soul will be so filled with His love, with the joy of communion with Him, that it will cleave to Him; and in the contemplation of Him, self will be forgotten. Love to Christ will be the spring of action…A profession of Christ without this deep love is mere talk, dry formality, and heavy drudgery" (SC p. 44, par. 2).
  • "He who is trying to become holy by his own works in keeping the Law, is attempting an impossibility…It is the grace of Christ alone, through faith that canmake us holy…Obedience is not a mere outward compliance, but the service oflove…the service and allegiance of love-is the true sign of discipleship…it is faith, and faith only that makes us partakers of the grace of Christ, which enables us to render obedience. We do not earn our salvation by our obedience; for salvation is the free gift of God, to be received by faith…obedience is the fruit of faith" (SC p. 60,61).
  • "It is impossible for us, of ourselves, to escape from the pit of sin in which we are sunken. Our hearts are evil, and we cannot change them… Education, culture, the exercise of the will, human effort, all have their proper sphere, but here they are powerless. They may produce an outward correctness of behavior, but they cannot change the heart; they cannot purify the springs of life. There must be a power working from within, a new life from above, before men can be changed from sin to holiness. That power is Christ. His grace alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness" (SC p. 18).
  • "…the one who depends upon his own wisdom and power is separating himself from God. Instead of working in unison with Christ, he is fulfilling the purpose of the enemy of God and man" (DA p. 209).
  • "Some who come to God by repentance and confession do not accept the forgiveness he has promised. They do not see that Jesus is an ever-present Saviour; and they are not prepared to commit the keeping of their souls to him,relying upon him to perfect the work of grace begun in their hearts. They lose sight of the fact that Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance. While some think they are committing themselves to God, there is a great deal ofself-dependence. There are conscientious souls that trust partly to God, and partly to themselves. They do not look to God to be kept by his power, but depend uponwatchfulness and the performance of certain duties for acceptance with him. There are no victories in this kind of faith. Such persons toil to no purpose; their souls are in continual bondage, and they find no rest until their burdens are laid at the feet of Jesus" (RH: June 17, 1884; par. 1,2 [1SM p. 353, par. 3]).
  • "The effort to earn salvation by one's own works inevitably leads men to pile up human exactions as a barrier against sin. For, seeing that they fail to keep the law,they will devise rules and regulations of their own to force themselves to obey. All this turns the mind from God to self" (MB p. 123).

So what does all this mean? Does it mean that we have nothing to do but sit around and wait for Christ to give us the victory, impart His grace and righteousness to us, and pour out His Spirit upon us? No! We have a work to do; we have a battle to fight. Sitting around hoping and waiting for Christ to pour out His Spirit upon us and make us partakers of His divine nature is an insult to Christ and to His sacrifice on our behalf. We have the hardest work we could ever be called upon to perform "For our struggle is not against a human opponent, but against rulers, against authorities, against cosmic powers in the darkness around us, against evil spiritual forces in the heavenly realm" (Eph. 6:12 International Standard Version) . Our battle is not aphysical battle but a spiritual one, and this is the hardest of all battles to fight. Sometimes I wish it were a physical battle, I think that that would beeasier for me. But our battle is against a Spiritual foe--a foe of great cunning, deception and power-and we require divine help if we are ever going to hope to come out victorious. Our battle lies in connecting to, andstaying connected to, the source of our help!

Now call me naïve, or weak, or anything else you want, but I find itextremely difficult to surrender fully to Christ. I have found it very difficult to maintain a meaningful spiritual relationship with a God that I cannot "see." I have found it a real struggle to listen to Christ-to discern His voice--and, by faith, to do the things He has told me to do. I have found it hard to discipline myself to spend the kind of time with Him that allows me to know for sure that He is walking with me through my life's struggles. I have found it difficult to consistently remain in an attitude where, in every situation, I am asking my Lord: "what wilt thou have me to do?" (Acts 9:6 KJV) . How about you?

How much time do you spend with Jesus each day? How often do you talk with Him, and how hard do you try to really listen to what He is saying to you? Can you say that you are completely surrendered to Christ? Or do you find yourself trying to wage the war on your own? How much ofyou does the Lord really have? What do you find occupying most of your thoughts? Where do you find yourself spending most of your time? What is your highest priority? What gives you your greatest joy? Is it Christ? Or is it something else?

This is no game we are playing here. This is Life or Death-Eternal Life or Eternal Death! If we are ever going to hope to be partakers of Christ's divine nature, we had better get serious about the battle! We had better get to the point where we "Know Christ" and not just about Christ. We had better get to the point where we are "so sensitive to Holy influences, that the slightest whisper of Jesus will move our souls, till He is in us, and we in Him, living by the faith of God" (ST: March 23, 1888. [3SM p.355]) . If we are ever going to get out of this mess of a world that we are in, we had better get serious about our relationship with the only person who can get us out of here alive-our Lord, our Savior, our God-Jesus Christ. We don't have to be Bible scholars, but we had better know what Christ has told us in the past-and what He is telling us today. We need His righteousness. Weneed His Holy Spirit. We need to become partakers of His divine nature!

    "The work of overcoming is not a joyless work; no, indeed. It meanscommunication with heaven. You can go to God in prayer; you can ask, andreceive; you can believe, hanging your helpless soul on Christ. It means thathumanity can work the will and ways of God. Humanity and divinity are combined for this very purpose" (General Conference Bulletins: May 17, 1909; par. 21).

    "In Christ, God has provided means for subduing every evil trait and resisting every temptation, however strong. But many feel that they lack faith, and therefore they remain away from Christ. Let these souls, in their helpless unworthiness, cast themselves upon the mercy of their compassionate Saviour. Look not to self, but to Christ. He who healed the sick and cast out demons when He walked among men is still the same mighty Redeemer. Then grasp His promises as leaves from the tree of Life: 'Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.' John 6:37. As you come to Him, believe that He accepts you, because He has promised. You cannever perish while you do this-never" (MH p. 65,66).

    "Jesus is waiting to breath upon all His disciples, and give them the inspiration ofHis sanctifying Spirit, and transfuse the vital influence from Himself to His people…Their will must be submitted to His will, they must act with His Spirit that it may be no more they that live, but Christ that liveth in them. Jesus is seeking to impress upon them the thought that in giving His Holy Spirit He is giving to them the glory which the Father hath given Him" (Letter 11b, 1892 [MR vol. 4, p.334]).

Will you accept this honor and this privilege? Will you accept thischallenge?

What We've Learned Here
  1. We may become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4).

  2. We must become partakers of the divine nature: "eternal life can be granted only to those who become partakers of the divine nature…"(9T p. 188) .

  3. We become partakers of the divine nature "Through the Holy Spirit." (RH: May 19, 1904; par. 3) .

  4. Christ has "Justified" us in the eyes of God through His death on the Cross, where He paid the penalty for our transgression. This "Justification" is imputed (put to our account) when we receive Christ as our Savior through faith. However, Justification is not enough to insure believers will attain eternal life. There has to be something more done for us and in us before we will be granted eternal life. That "something" is Sanctification.

  5. Sanctification, the removal of sin from the life of the believer, is accomplished by Christ through His Holy Spirit. Christ sacrificed His "Spirit" (separated from it permanently) for us in order that it might be given to us as a "divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon the church" - "With His Spirit Christ sends a reconciling influence and a power that takes away sin" (RH: May 19, 1904) .

  6. In Christ we have been provided the means by which we may obtain pardon and by which we may overcome the Tempter and be victorious. Christ intends that we shall become free from sin in our lives-that we shall become perfect-by partaking of His divine nature (His Spirit).

  7. Christ intends that we will be more than victorious. He intends that we shall be elevated to a status above that of the angels who never fell. He intends to elevate us to a status equal with Himself.

  8. Through the incarnation, Christ became human. In His humanity He partook of His Father's divine nature and thus: God the Father "adopted human nature in the person of His Son" (DA p. 25) . By this action, Christ grafted humanity into the Godhead. By becoming "partakers of His [Christ's] divine nature" we are considered "Sons" of God and we too are to be grafted into the Godhead.

  9. Our work is to develop such an intimate relationship with Christ that He will be enabled to transform our characters into His own. All those who have this intimate relationship with Christ will be enabled to fully partake of the power of His Holy Spirit.

  10. Those who partake fully of Christ's divine nature (receive the Latter Rain) will "reign" and rule with Christ.

  11. The choice is ours. We are the ones who will decide our own destinies-either by accepting the provision that Christ has made in order that we may become partakers of His divine nature and be granted eternal life-or by refusing to allow Him to perform this work in us and receive eternal death.

    "Jesus has done everything for you; he withheld not even himself" (ST: November 20, 1884; par. 20). Christ has paid the penalty for our transgression and in His humanity Christ pleads His own merits on our behalf before the Father. But that is simply not enough to bring about our transformation into His likeness: "Christ must be in us a living, working power" (MS #39, 1896 [7BC p. 921, par. 5]). He can only transform us into His image by abiding in us through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit. It is His "Spirit" that confirms and makes effectual what Christ, in His humanity, has done for us. His Spirit is responsible for the completion of the Plan of Redemption. "It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given his Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress his own character upon the church" (RH: May 19, 1904; par. 3). Christ's divinity and His humanity combined constitute the perfect sacrifice that He has made in order to make us "One" with God.

    "If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was 'in all points tempted like as we are.' Heb. 4:15. He endured every trial to which we are subject. And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God" (DA p. 24, par. 2). "Our Saviour relied upon His heavenly Father for wisdom and strength to resist and overcome the tempter. The Spirit of His Heavenly Fatheranimated and regulated His life" (The Youth's Instructor, February 1, 1873)

    We may speak of Jesus as a person and speak of the Holy Spirit as a person, but we must never separate the two from Christ - for it can never be so. Christ sacrificed Himself - body and Spirit in order to redeem us. The person of Jesus Christ must be understood in this light. It is He who has provided His Spirit "as a regenerating agency," a "reconciling influence and a power that takes away sin" (RH: May 19, 1904; par. 3) -- and He has done so at an enormous and eternal cost to Himself. "Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be treated as He deserves…He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His. 'With His stripes we are healed'" (DA p. 25, par. 2) .

    The Promise of The Spirit

    "Christ declared that after his ascension, he would send to his church, as his crowning gift, the Comforter, who was to take his place. This Comforter is the Holy Spirit,--the soul of his life, the efficacy of his church, the light and life of the world. With his Spirit Christ sends a reconciling influence and a power that takes away sin.

    In the gift of the Spirit, Jesus gave to man the highest good that heaven could bestow. The Saviour looked on humanity, and saw that it was under the power of the prince of darkness; but he saw also that there was hope for human beings because there was power in the divine nature successfully to contend with evil agencies. With glad assurance he said, "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

    The Spirit was given as a regenerating agency, and without this the sacrifice of Christ would have been of no avail. The power of evil had been strengthening for centuries, and the submission of man to this satanic captivity was amazing. Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's Redeemer. It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given his Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress his own character upon the church.

    Christ said of the Spirit, "He shall glorify me." As Christ glorified the Father by the demonstration of his love, so the Spirit was to glorify Christ by revealing to the world the riches of his grace. The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of his people.

    At the cost of infinite sacrifice and suffering, Christ has provided for us every essential to success in the Christian warfare. The Holy Spirit brings power that enables man to overcome. It is through the agency of the Spirit that the government of Satan is to be subdued. It is the Spirit that convinces of sin, and, with the consent of the human being, expels sin from the heart. The mind is then brought under a new law,--the royal law of liberty.

    The Spirit works in us by bringing to mind, vividly and often, the precious truths of the plan of redemption. We should forget these truths, and for us God's rich promises would lose their efficiency, were it not for the Spirit, who takes of the things of God, and shows them to us. Our hearts are warmed by the contemplation of Jesus and his love, and we long to speak to others the comforting assurances that have been brought to our minds.

    It is the privilege of every son and daughter of God to have the indwelling of the Spirit. If those who know the truth would love and fear the Lord alway, if they would abide in Christ, they would have moral and spiritual power. The grace of Christ would be in them as a well of water, springing up unto everlasting life, and would flow from them as streams of living water.

    The Spirit illumines our darkness, informs our ignorance, and helps us in our manifold necessities. But the mind must be constantly going out after God. If worldliness is allowed to come in, if we have no desire to pray, no desire to commune with him who is the source of strength and wisdom, the Spirit will not abide with us. Those who are unbelieving do not receive the rich endowment of grace that would make them wise unto salvation, patient, forbearing, quick to perceive and appreciate heavenly ministrations, quick to discern Satan's devices, and strong to resist sin. God can not do his mighty work for them because of their unbelief.

    Christ has promised the gift of the Spirit to his church, and the promise belongs to us as much as to the first disciples. But like every other promise, it is given on conditions. There are many who believe, and profess to claim the Lord's promise; they talk about Christ and about the Holy Spirit, yet receive no benefit. They do not surrender the soul to be guided and controlled by the divine agencies. We cannot use the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is to use us. Through the Spirit God works in his people "to will and to do of his good pleasure." But many will not submit to this. They want to manage themselves. This is why they do not receive the heavenly gift. Only to those who wait humbly upon God, who watch for his guidance and grace, is the Spirit given.

    Christ declared that the divine influence was to be with his followers to the end. But the promise is not accepted and believed by God's people; therefore its fulfillment is not seen. The promise of the Spirit is a matter little thought of; and the result is only what might be expected,--spiritual drought, spiritual weakness, spiritual declension and death. Minor matters occupy the attention, and the divine power that is necessary for the growth and prosperity of the church, and which would bring all other blessings in its train, is lacking, though offered in its infinite plentitude.

    Just so long as the church is satisfied with small things will it fail of receiving the great things of God. Why do we not hunger and thirst after the gift of the Spirit, since this is the means by which we are to receive power? Talk of it, pray for it, preach concerning it. The Lord is more willing to give the Holy Spirit to us than parents are to give good gifts to their children.

    If our workers realized the responsibility resting upon them, would they enter the work without cherishing a deep sense of its sacredness? Should we not see the deep movings of the Spirit of God upon the men who present themselves for the ministry? For the baptism of the Holy Spirit, every worker should be offering his prayer to God. Companies should be gathered together to ask for special help, for heavenly wisdom, that they may know how to devise and execute. Especially should men pray that God will baptize his missionaries with the Holy Spirit.

    There is no limit to the usefulness of one who, putting aside self, makes room for the working of the Holy Spirit upon his heart, and lives a life wholly consecrated to God. If men will endure the necessary discipline, without complaining or fainting by the way, God will teach them hour by hour, and day by day. He longs to reveal his grace. If his people will remove the obstructions, he will pour forth the waters of salvation in abundant streams through human channels. If men in humble life were encouraged to do all the good they could do, if restraining hands were not laid upon them to repress the zeal, there would be one hundred workers for Christ where now there is one.

    God takes men as they are, and educates them for his service, if they will yield themselves to him. The Spirit of God, received into the soul, will quicken all its faculties. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the mind that is devoted unreservedly to God develops harmoniously, and is strengthened to comprehend and fulfill the requirements of God. The weak, vacillating character becomes changed to one of strength and steadfastness. Continual devotion establishes so close a relation between Jesus and his disciples that the Christian becomes like him in mind and character. Through a connection with Christ he will have clearer and broader views. His discernment will be more penetrative, his judgment better balanced.

    The presence of the Holy Spirit with God's workers will give the presentation of truth a power that not all the honor or glory of the world could give. The Spirit furnishes the strength that sustains striving, wrestling souls in every emergency, amid the unfriendliness of relatives, the hatred of the world, and the realization of their own imperfections and mistakes.

    A union of divine and human endeavor, a close connection first, last, and ever, with God, the source of all strength,--this is absolutely necessary in our work."

    Review and Herald, May 19, 1904

    "They have one God and one Saviour; and one Spirit-the Spirit of Christ"
    (9T p. 189)
    "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty."
    (2 Cor. 3:17)

    In the book of Acts we find examples of the disciples "making disciples" of other men and baptizing them into the Lord Jesus Christ. In each of the examples recorded we find them baptizing in the name of "Jesus."

      Acts 2:38 "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

      Acts 8:16 "For He [Holy Spirit] had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

      Acts 10:48 "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."

      Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

    Were the disciples careless about following our Lord's instructions? Or did they understand perfectly what Jesus had told them to do? Isn't it more plausible (likely) that the disciples were obedient to Jesus and followed His instructions? And if this is the case, isn't it probable that those instructions were not stated as we find them recorded in Matthew 28:19?

According to the Encyclopaedia of Religions, baptism is a word that means: to plunge, immerse or wash, any rite of immersion in water.

The practice of baptism that is taught in the New Testament is not new, but is based on the Old Testament. However, in the Old Testament, baptism was always symbolic for the spiritual cleaning of sin.

In Ezekiel 36: 25 the Bible says this: ‘Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.’

In Jeremiah 2:22 the Bible says this: ‘For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Most High.’

In Isaiah 1:16 the Bible says this: ‘wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings…’

In Jeremiah 4:14 the Bible says this: ‘ O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall vain thoughts lodge within thee.’

When John the Baptist came on the scene, the Israelites of his day were already familiar with the symbol of baptism.

John the Baptist was the prophet spoken of in Malachi 3:1 in the  Old Testament, whose job was to prepare Israel for the coming of Christ. Part of that preparation was to illustrate to the Israelites the things that Christ would do. The custom of baptism was a rich teaching aid that John used to demonstrate what Christ would do with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

In Matthews 3:11 the Bible says this: ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:’

The 'I indeed' in the above verse shows us that the baptism that John was performing does not represent literal water or outward immersion, but symbolised the inward spiritual cleansing of sin by repenting and believing in the words of Christ.

In John 15:3 Christ says this in the Bible: ‘Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken to you.’

One who believes in Christ’s words is baptised (made clean), and given forgiveness of sins.

In Luke 23: 41-43, one of the men being crucified next to Christ acknowledged Him as the Saviour. Christ promised him that he would be with him in the kingdom. Although he was guilty of his sins he had not been dunked in water to receive his salvation. He believed in the words of Christ.

In the Book of Acts 2:38, Peter addresses a group of unbelievers by saying: ‘Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptised every one of you be baptised in the name of Christ…’

It then goes on to say in Acts 2:41: ‘…Then they that had gladly received the word were baptised:’

In Ephesians 5:26 the Bible says: ‘That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of the water by the word.

Just as animal sacrifice did not take away sins with the sprinkling of blood in the Old Testament, whetting your skin with water does not magically remove sin. It goes deeper than that.  This cleanse has to happen inwardly.  

Psalms 119: 9 says this in the Bible: ‘Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.’

In the same way the body needs to be washed from dirt the spirit also needs to be washed from sin. Dirt represents sin. That spiritual washing, of the 'Holy spirit' and 'fire' represents the total obliteration of sin with his holy spirit to all those that follow his words.

1 Peters 3:21 says this also in the Bible: ‘The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward G_d,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’


Interesting link here about the spurious verse: http://www.everlastingkingdom.info/article/128/constantine-wrote-matthew-2819-into-your-bible.html


I command thee in the "name" of Jesus Christ, 

Historians and biblical encyclopedias all agree that it was the name of Jesus that was invoked in baptism for the first 100 years of the newly founded Church. In fact, the written works of Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263-339) suggest that Matthew 28:19 originally did not contain the triune formula at all, but rather stated, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name." While all extant manuscripts contain the triune formula, some early church records seem to indicate that the text was changed within the first 100 years to reflect the emerging doctrine of the Trinity. There is compelling evidence to support the conclusion that Jesus never spoke the words we now read in Matthew 28:19.

Baptism: Is it necessary for Salvation?

Christ emphasized, baptism is necessary! It's in the Bible (See John 3:5).

What should we do today?

The same as Peter told those who asked him the same question. You can find Peter's answer in Acts 2:38  (KJV) "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."

"Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. (We have lost our first love. 1844-1888 historic SDA Philadelphia church) If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place." Revelation 2:5

Believers Should Be Baptized In the Name of Jesus Christ, not in the Three Trinity gods names. Obey the command: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST." Acts 2:38 
(KJV) 

The Problem with Matthew 28:19


Matthew 28:19-20 is questioned by reputable scholars as the authentic formula for baptism. Every example in Acts shows that the candidate is immersed into the single Name, Jesus Christ, not a trinitarian formula. A trinity or triad of deities is found in almost all pagan religions, and the concept of a Christian trinity likely sprang from an attempt to please pagan converts.


Matthew 28:19-20 commands immersing into the name, singular. The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic publication, admits this verse is spurious and had likely crept into the text from liturgical usage. This same finding is expressed in World Religions, The Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics, New Schafferzog Religious Encyclopedia, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, and other sources.



No passage of Scripture asserts that God is three. If it be asked what I intend to qualify by the numeral three, I answer, anything which the reader pleases. There is no Scripture which asserts that God is three persons, three agents, three beings, three Gods, three spirits, three substances, three modes, three offices, three attributes, three divinities, three infinite minds, three somewhats, three opposites, or three in any sense whatever. The truth of this has been admitted by every Trinitarian who ever wrote or preached on the subject."

It is sometimes stated that in order to be baptized into something, that something has to be God, but that reasoning is false, because Scripture states that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2).
1 Corinthians 10:2 (KJV) "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;"


Matthew 28:19

 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.

Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). As we shall see in chapter two, Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says:

"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The 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 - 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 to work in the 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 did not observe this world-wide commandment, even if they new it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.'"

"For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103

This is confirmed in 'Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, which is universally acclaimed and considered to be the standard reference for students of the Bible. It says:

"This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."

For example, these Christian scholars observed that after Jesus allegedly issued this command and then was taken up into heaven, the apostles displayed a complete lack of knowledge of this command.

"And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'"

Acts 2:38.

These Christian scholars observed that it is extremely unlikely that if Jesus had indeed specifically commanded his apostles to "baptize in the name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost" that the apostles would later disobey his direct command and baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, alone.

As a final piece of evidence, it is noted that after the departure of Jesus, when Paul decided to preach to the Gentiles, this resulted in a heated debate and a great difference of opinion between him and at least three of the apostles. This would not be the case if Jesus had, as claimed, openly commanded them to preach to the Gentiles (see section 6.13 for more). So we notice that not only does this verse never claim that the three are one, or even that the three are equal, but most scholars of Christianity today recognize that at the very least the last part of this verse ("the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost") was not originally part of the command of Jesus but was inserted by the church long after Jesus' departure.



Trinitarian Baptism and Matthew 28:19

 

Many have been baptized into a trinitarian formula, basing their actions on Matthew 28:19. Now learn the facts about this verse and the proper prescription for immersion.

__________________________________________

 

What Must We Do?

A profound feeling of guilt swept over the Apostle Peter’s audience. Those gathered learned that it was their breaking of GOD’s law (their sin, 1John 3:4) that caused the Savior’s death! A feeling of despair overwhelmed them and they earnestly and urgently asked Peter, “What must we do?”

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus the Messiah for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38 )

Baptism is the initial, compelling act one considers after learning of one’s own sinful record. Baptism is a willing, voluntary step assumed by a contrite heart, seeking spiritual restoration and the grace and forgiveness freely promised us by the Heavenly Father through His Son.

Israelites were brought into the covenant through involuntary circumcision at infancy. Today, the New Covenant is entered into on one’s own volition.

Sadly, not everyone who is called to be grafted into the Abrahamic promise willingly responds. Some may turn their backs upon GOD’s invitation and though called, are not chosen.

“So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many are called, but few chosen.” (Matt. 20:16)

To the dutiful, seeking Bible student, the question is often raised, “Unto what are we to be baptized?” This very question was foremost among many of the early seekers of truth when learning that baptism means complete immersion into water, representing a voluntary submerging of one’s self into the character of Jesus the Messiah. It signifies a burying of our wills to be in harmony with His.

 

Baptized into a Name or Titles?

The popular practice is to baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Where did the Trinitarian formula for baptism come from, anyway?

The only verse found in the Bible, dealing with baptism, that even hints at a trinitarian formula is found in Matthew 28:19: “Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Being baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is not being baptized into a name at all! Father and Son are mere titles. Unlike names, no power or promise exists in titles. The Holy Spirit is not a name, but a descriptive noun for the dynamic Power that flows from the Father and is shared by the Son. Many men are fathers and have sons. All sons have fathers. “Father” and “son” are common nouns, not names.

Notice in Matthew 28:19 that the noun “name” is in the singular. It is not “into the names,” plural, but the expression is “baptized into THE NAME.” This is considered the savior’s parting command to His beloved Disciples. Henceforth they would be apostles (meaning those “sent with a mission”) and no longer disciples (“learners”).

Known as the “Great Commission,” this verse appears in the revered King James Version and is often quoted in an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine.

The validity of these departing words has been questioned since the time of Coneybeare. That the Savior actually spoke these exact words that allude to a Trinity is questioned by many reputable scholars.

Bible experts down through history have questioned Matthew 28:19, pointing out that this verse is contrary to both the plain teachings in the Book of Acts and Paul’s writings as well. It is not in harmony with other Scriptural teachings, nor do ANY of the narratives on baptism follow this trinitarian practice.

The following fact, brought out in the New International Biblical Commentary, shows why Matthew 28:19 is so questionable: “This is the only occurrence of the formula from the first century... Elsewhere baptism is said to be ‘in the name of [Jesus Christ] (Acts 8:16 , 19:5),’” p. 268.

 

Other Examples Curiously Absent

Why is Matthew 28:19 the ONLY passage where the bible seemingly presents a Trinitarian formula or concept for baptism?

In the numerous instances of immersion extant in the New Testament, why don’t we find the Apostles baptizing converts into the Trinitarian formula using the phrase, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”? Why is not this formula followed anywhere in the entire Book of Acts?

Why does not Paul or Peter specify baptism into the trinitarian formula rather than only into “Jesus Christ’s Name”?

The doctrine of the Trinity says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are “three persons in one, and all three are equal.” But the Savior never said He was equal to the Father. He said His Father was GREATER than He (John14:28 ). Paul said the head of the Messiah is GOD (1Corinthians 11:3), and in fact is “above all” (Ephesians 4:6).

A number of observations from Bible-based sources reveal that the Trinitarian formula is an erroneous teaching of the Church, a doctrine that eventually crept into the evangel of Matthew. This fraudulent verse was taken from liturgy and soon attached to the end of Matthew’s text. The Trinity doctrine is not found in the Old Testament, and is only a forced interpretation of a few New Testament verses. A multitude of references show that the Trinity concept stems from paganism. (Write for our booklet, The Truth about the Trinity).

 

Matthew 28:19 Examined

Under “Baptismal Formula,” the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition, states:
“The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together. The Teaching of the Apostles, indeed, prescribes baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of [Jesus Christ] -- the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of [Messiah] was so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid. From Pope Zachariah (Ep.x.) we learn that the Celtic missionaries in baptizing omitted one or more persons of the Trinity, and this was one of the reasons why the Church of Rome anathematized them; Pope Nicholas, however (858-867)...allowed baptism to be valid tantum in nomine Christi, as in Acts. Basil, in his work On the Holy Spirit just mentioned, condemns “baptism into the L-rd alone” as insufficient. Baptism “into the death of [Messiah]” is often specified by the Armenian fathers as that which alone was essential.

“Ursinus, an African monk...also asserted that baptism into the name of [Messiah] alone was valid... “Trine immersion, then, as to the origin of which Basil confesses his ignorance, must be older than either of the rival explanations. These are clearly...invented to explain an existing custom, which the church had adopted from its pagan medium. For pagan lustrations were normally threefold. Ovid...Persius...and Horace...similarly speak of trine lustrations; and on the last mentioned passage the scholiast Acro remarks, ’He uses the words thrice purely, because people in expiating their sins plunge themselves in thrice.’ Such examples of the ancient usage encounters us everywhere in Greek and Latin antiquity” (pp. 365-366).

These are rather strong words, but as the Britannica says, the trinitarian formula for baptism was invented to explain an existing custom that the church had adopted strictly from paganism! Notice that the pagan converts, upon being baptized for forgiveness of sins, voluntarily dip themselves three times as a carryover from the trinitarian influence of their previous heathen beliefs.

 

Religious Sources on Matt. 28:19

The following are comments selected from time-honored, scholarly sources skeptical of the phrase, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” as found in Matthew 28:19:

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly, well-respected Catholic work, admits: “It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing ‘in the name of J-sus,’ cf. Acts 1:5.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 4, p. 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 “foreign to the mouth of [Jesus Christ].”

New Revised Standard Version notes on Matthew 28:19: “Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to [Jesus Christ] and that it represents later church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity...”

The Expositor’s Greek New Testament by Nicoll, p. 340, hedges in explaining the dubious Matthew 28 formula: “into the name as confessing the name which embodies the essence of the Christian creed...it is the name not of one but of three, forming a baptismal Trinity -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is not said into the names of, etc., nor into the name of the Father, and the name of the son, and the name of the Holy Ghost -- Hence might be deduced the idea of a Trinity constituting at the same time a Divine Unity. But this would probably be reading more into the words than was intended.”

Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 245, explains, “Trine immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”

The New American Bible, by Catholic Bible Publishers, states concerning Matthew 28:19: “Go, therefore, and make...some regard these words as an interpretation of [Jesus Christ’s] final instruction in the light of the church’s early change from a mission to the Jews to one in behalf of the Gentiles...The baptismal formula reflects the church’s gradual understanding of G-d as three Persons...”

The Hasting’s Encyclopedia of Religion (vol. 2, pp. 377-389) asserts about the change in formula: “The Christian baptism was administered using the Name of [Jesus Christ]. The trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the [Master Jesus Christ], until the time of Justin Martyr, when the Trinity formula was used.”

New Testament Theology by Donald Guthrie points out inconsistencies with Matthew 28:19: “The dispute over the authenticity of the triune formula revolves around the comparison with the simpler formula used in Acts (cf. 2:38 ;8:16 ; 10:48 ; 19:5). The question arises whether the triune formula requires a late date.” A footnote states, “...and concludes against the words being the ipsissima verba [exact words] of [Jesus Christ], mainly on the grounds of historical probability,” p.719.

Another footnote explains that the Triune formula was used for the Gentiles, whereas in Acts those baptized were Jews or those fearing GOD. In other words, Jews were immersed into Jesus Christ’s Name, and Gentiles into the Trinitarian formula, as a trinity was familiar to pagans, p. 719.

Adam Clarke’s Commentary corroborates the practice: “The Jews baptized proselytes into the name of the Father, that is, into the profession g-d, whom they called by the name of Father. The apostles baptized the Jews into the name of [Jesus Christ] the Son, and the Gentiles into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” vol.3, p. 285.

Expositors’ Bible Commentary says only one formula was ever correctly used, a single-name prescription: “Many deny the authenticity of this Trinitarian formula, however, not on the basis of doubtful reconstructions of the development of doctrine, but on the basis of the fact that the only evidence we have of actual Christian baptism indicates a consistent monadic formula -- baptism in [Jesus Christ’s] name...” vol. 8, p. 598.

The Interpreter’s Bible agrees: “Probably this baptismal formula was simpler in the very first days of the church -- ‘in the name of the [Master Jesus Christ].’ The formula of verse 19 was probably a later development,” vol. 7, p. 624.

The Anchor Bible, a Catholic reference Bible, says on Matthew, “The neophyte baptized into the name of the Messiah thus not only pledges allegiance to [Jesus Christ] as the Messiah and Sovereign, but is also incorporated into fellowship with Him. Hence the expression used in this verse describes an entrance into fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...It seems plain from the early material in Acts that baptism was performed “in the name of” and also “into the name of” [Jesus Christ] as Sovereign and Messiah. The mistake of so many writers on the New Testament lies in treating this as a liturgical formula (which it later became), and not as a description what baptism accomplished,” pp. 107-108.

Parrinder’s World Religions raises the question of a later addition of the verse: “This verse may well be a later interpolation into the original gospel of Matthew, but it certainly reflects what the early Church did, in fact, does,” p. 425.

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible says, “...Matthew 28:19 has also been disputed on textural grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. There is, however, grave doubt whether they may be regarded as ipsissima verba of [Jesus Christ]. The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 ; 8:16 ; 19:5 supported by Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3 “suggests...Jesus Christ only, p. 351.

Word Pictures in New Testament by A. T. Robertson: “The name of [Jesus Christ] is the essential part of it as is shown in Acts. Trine immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority,” vol. 1, p.245.

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, sums up: “[Jesus Christ], however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only baptism in the name of [Jesus Christ] (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1Cor. 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 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 Christ] to make such formulas...the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed...” (p.435).

 

Examples of Immersion in the King James Version

The Book of Acts shows that baptisms were in the name of the Savior alone. There is no example in the Book of Acts of any Trinitarian formula anywhere. Note the following:  “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ the Messiah for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38 )

“For as yet [the Spirit] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ the Messiah.” (Acts 8:16 )

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of [Jesus Christ the Messiah]. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Acts 10:48 )

“When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the sovereign Jesus Christ.” (Acts 19:5)

“And now why tarriest? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on [His name -- all texts].” (Acts 22:16 )

In all five of the above references to baptism in the Book of Acts, the baptisms are done in the Name of Jesus Christ. That we be baptized into Jesus Christ’s saving Name is a very important consideration, as we will show.

 

Salvation in Jesus Christ the Messiah

Of ourselves, we can do nothing that will redeem us. All our righteousness is as filthy rags in GOD’s sight. The only way we can be clothed in clean raiment is by having our robes washed in the blood of the Lamb. By yielding to Him and acknowledging Him as Sovereign we can enter into the presence of GOD. We must repent from our past life and acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Head of the body. Otherwise we are lost.

“And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the [Sovereign] Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our Elohim.” (1Cor. 6:11 )

Through baptism into the Messiah, we publicly acknowledge that we have turned from our past life that was without hope, ending only in death. Now we follow in the footsteps of our beloved Savior. We bury our past life in the baptismal waters and are brought forth to walk in newness of life.

“Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ Messiah were baptized into His death?” “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Messiah was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” ( Rom. 6:3-4)

Notice, our burial is with Jesus Christ, not with a Trinity! Paul makes the point that we are immersed into Jesus Christ’s Name, putting the old carnal nature to death and arising from the baptismal waters to walk as the Savior walks, in complete obedience to GOD. The Apostle Peter agrees with Paul, there is only one Name by which we can attain salvation. That is in the Name, Jesus Christ, the Name the Savior was given directly from the heavens. Note Peter’s bold words: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 )

 

Laying On Hands Of The Presbytery

We are given the Holy Spirit at baptism by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery (the Elders). Receiving the Holy Spirit empowers us to overcome the pulls and temptations of the world, our flesh, and the Adversary.

“Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”

“And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money.” (Acts 8:17-18)

Baptisms in the Bible were always done by the ministers. Following the immersion, the Apostles laid hands on the baptized brethren, asking for GOD’s blessings and for the Holy Spirit to indwell them. Paul told Timothy the Holy Spirit was given him by the laying on of hands of the ordained Elders of the Assembly:

“Neglect not the gift that is in you, which was given you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” (1Tim 4:14 )

Paul was not ashamed to claim that the spiritual gift passed on to young Timothy was through the placing of his own hands on the young evangelist.

“Wherefore, I put you in remembrance that you stir up the gift of God, which is in you by the putting on of my hands.” (2Tim. 1:6)

 

The Body Of Messiah, The Assembly

The only way we are to be given the promises is through Jesus Christ; for He is the only One Who has kept all the law perfectly!

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Messiah have put on Messiah. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Messiah Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 3:27-28)

Through being baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ we show our complete faith in Jesus Christ and are made children of God.

“And if you be Messiah’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). By becoming the Messiah’s through baptism into His Name, we are partakers of promises to Abraham made back in Genesis 12 and 15 and carried on through the Old Testament and amplified so gloriously in the New Testament.

By being immersed into Jesus Christ’s saving Name we act out the Savior’s death and resurrection, burying our sins in the waters of baptism. Now the power of GOD gives us a willing heart as we overcome and endure day by day, looking for the resurrection day as shown by the Apostle Peter:

“The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward GOD), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ Messiah.” (1Peter 3:21 )

The Bible teaches there is but one proper baptism. Unless one has been fully dipped under water, into the Name of Jesus Christ, it is not a proper baptism. Baptisms done in the Trinity formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are improper, based on an added liturgical formula in Matthew 28:19.

Neither is baptism in Ha Ruach Chodesh (the Holy Spirit) proper, for the Spirit is the power or active force, the vitality that flows from the Father and shared by the Son.

Being baptized into Jesus Christ’s Name is the only proper formula for baptism. The preposition, “into,” is the Greek, “eis,” and means, “motion toward.” We persist in following Him. We continually strive to be like the Messiah and grow spiritually in Him so that we are like Him, for there is but “One Master, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5)

When immersed into Jesus Christ’s saving Name, we take hold of the New Covenant, and we become a part of His body of believers, and we should then do all we can to edify the body, His Assembly. As already noted, we individually are given a special gift to be used in building and strengthening His body, which we are to use in our role as a member of Messiah’s Body. To ensure growth within the Assembly: “GOD has set some in the assembly, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” (1Cor. 12:28 )

Being properly baptized into the only Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, Jesus Christ puts us into the Body of true believers. It is up to you to answer GOD’s call to become a part of that Body through acknowledging the Head of that Body. His Name is Jesus Christ the Messiah.

“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1Cor. 12:13 )

 

Baptism of John Was of Repentance

Unless one has been immersed into Jesus Christ, “the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,” it is not a baptism unto salvation. Being immersed in “J-sus Name,” or in the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit,” is improper.

According to Acts 19:1-5, such baptisms are but a baptism of repentance. That is, the candidate was obedient and did what he understood at the time. He was repentant, seeking GOD and Jesus. But he did not fulfill the correct prescription for immersion unto salvation through the saving Name.

Now that you have seen the Bible example of proper baptism, if you have not been immersed into Jesus Christ’s saving Name with the laying on of hands, determine now to do so. You should not hang back or put off this most important act. 

 

VARIOUS QUOTES

Various Quotes from Books, Commentaries, and Dictionaries relating to Matthew 28:19

http://www.godglorified.com/various_quotes.htm

From Our God Is One Talmadge French, 1999, page 216:

"Generally, the Oneness position has been the complete harmonization of the Matthean expression with that of the Jesus' name form. But, interestingly, some Oneness arguments have appealed to textual critical scholarship which denies Jesus ever spoke the words recorded in the Matthew 28:19 account. More typically, it is maintained that the one apostolic formula is 'in the name of Jesus,' and the account in Matthew was interpreted by the apostles, including Matthew himself, to be the invocation of the name of Jesus."

From The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585:

"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism."

From The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83:

"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15).

From Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723:

Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit."

From The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
S. Driver, A. Plummer, C. Briggs
A Critical & Exegetical Commentary of St. Matthew
Third Edition, 1912, pages 307-308:

"On the text, see Conybeare, Zeitsch. Fur die Neutest. Wissensch. 1901, 275 ff.; Hibbert Journal, October 1902; Lake, Inaugural Lecture; Riggenbach, Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl; Chase, Journal Theo. Stud. Vi. 481 ff. The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive, in view of the fact that all Greek MSS. and all extant VSS., contain the clause (S1 and S2 are unhappily wanting). The Eusebian quotation: "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name," can not be taken as decisive proof that the clause "Baptizing...Spirit" was lacking in copies known to Eusebius, because "in my name" may be Eusebius' way of abbreviating, for whatever reason, the following clause. On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel, than to invent possible reasons which may have caused him so frequently to have paraphrased it. And if we once suppose his short form to have been current in MSS. of the Gospel, there is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the Gospel, and that in the later centuries the clause "baptizing...Spirit" supplanted the shorter "in my name." An insertion of this kind derived from liturgical use would very rapidly be adopted by copyists and translators. The Didache has ch. 7: "Baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit": but the passage need not be dependent on our canonical Gospel, and the Didache elsewhere has a liturgical addition to the text of the Gospels in the doxology attached to the Lord's Prayer. But Irenaeus and Tertullian already have the longer clause."

[This is one of my favorite quotes! The double talk is incredible!]

I have been searching for authority to baptize in Jesus Name. I cannot find where it says anywhere in Ellen White's writings or the BIBLE that you have to be a ELDER to baptize....or from a certain denomination... 

I do see that you have to be "Christ's" church.... which is invisible...because how can you tell if someone has been rejuvenated by the "HOLY" Spirit by looking at them? YOU CAN ONLY TELL BY THEIR FRUITS! Brotherly LOVE, peace, joy, Gal 5:22....But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 

He says, GO AND MAKE DISCIPLES IN MY NAME! 

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.!! 

Don't look to a man! Look to GOD ALONE! GET DOWN ON YOUR KNEES AND PLEAD WITH GOD TO SHOW YOU THE PATH, HE WILL!

Does "the GREAT APOSTASY, which is DEVELOPING and INCREASING and waxing stronger, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO until the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout." sound as if the Corp. SDA church is going to REFORM? I have to agree with Ellen White...she is the Prophet of GOD speaking to me.... I feel such an urgency to obey without delay for ME & MY family. Each has to make their own choice. 

I choose to be in the Little Flock and the FEW that strive to enter in at the straight gate. (Luke 12:32 & Matthew 7:14)

I am afraid to step back inside a SDA church door for fear of disobeying my GOD. I don't want Jesus frown upon me and I don't want GOD's wrath or plagues on me and my family because of worshiping a pagan Trinity of gods and being baptized into the Trinity! How can the "people of the book" have become SO backslidden? I want to be named with the NAME of our Lord Jesus Christ. I want to belong to Jesus and Jesus to belong to me! 

Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 33B, Matthew 14-28
Donald A. Hagner, 1975, page887-888:

"The disciples are further told to "baptize" (the second of the participles functioning as supplementary imperatives) new disciples. The command to baptize comes as somewhat of a surprise since baptism is referred to earlier only in chap. 3 (and 21:25) where only John's baptism is described (among the Gospels only in John 3:22; 4:1-2 do we read of Jesus' or his disciples' baptizing others). Matthew tells us nothing concerning his view of Christian baptism. Only Matthew records this command of Jesus, but the practice of the early church suggest its historicity. (cf. Acts 2;38, 41; 8:12, 38; 9:18; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; etc.). The threefold name (at most only an incipient Trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf. Did. 7.1). There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read "make disciples in my name" (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation (see H. B. Green; cf. Howard; Hill [IBS 8 (1986) 54-63], on the other hand, argues for a concentric design with the triadic formula at its center). It is Kosmala, however, who has argued most effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of "name of Jesus" in early Christian preaching, the practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular "in his name" with reference to the hope of the Gentiles in Isa. 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21. As Carson rightly notes of our passage: "There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16; 19:5)."

Also present in William Arnold III page: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm

History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79 fn.:

"It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a "Sacrament of Baptism," or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged."

The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568:

"The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed 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. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized "into Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," (Acts 2:38) and not "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats."

History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112:

"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea 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 had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus―this long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading."

"It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance."

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, J. Hastings, 1906, page 170:

"It is doubted whether the explicit injunction of Matt. 28:19 can be accepted as uttered by Jesus. ...
But the Trinitarian formula in the mouth of Jesus is certainly unexpected."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398:

"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious.
No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles."

The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64:

Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same."

The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, page 351:

Matthew 28:19 "... has been disputed on textual grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. There is, however, grave doubt whether thy may be the ipsissima verba of Jesus. The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Gal. 3:27; Rom 6:3, suggest 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." This is difficult to reconcile with the specific instructions of the verse at the end of Matthew."

The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143:

Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin.

Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form.

Many of the above quotes were found in the reference section of a local Nazarene University library.


A Collection of Evidence Against the
Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19

by
Clinton D. Willis
 http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

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 8:19:

"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 Moffatt'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 confessed, is 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 triune 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, while the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache of 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 triune (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 triune 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 triune 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, revises 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.

Why Be Baptized Into the Name of Yahshua?

 

Is baptism just an initiation into a church, or is it truly important for salvation? Did you know that there is a proper method for, and Name into which you must be baptized? (Also see "The Authority to Baptize")

_______________________________________________________________

 


Analysis of Matthew 28:19
in
A study of the
Text
of the
New Testament
©Copyright 2000 Randall Duane Hughes

Much has happened in the past couple of hundred years that has changed the text of the New Testament, as we know it. Various manuscripts have been discovered that have revealed to scholars (Textual Critics) what is believed to be a more accurate rendering of the text. In addition to these manuscripts (now approaching 6,000 Greek MSS), scholars also use quotations found within the writings of the Church Fathers, or Patristic quotations, along with the Versions (Coptic, Latin, Syriac, etc). These various findings have produced numerous changes. Some just the omission of a word here, or the addition of a word in another place, to entire passages being removed, or retained under question. A glance at just about any page of the New King James will reveal this in both footnote and text. Other versions (NIV, NRSV, NET, etc) also reveal these discoveries.

Something to keep in mind. Although there are some discrepancies, there remains a great deal of agreement! "Manuscript differences such as the omission or inclusion of a word or a clause, and two paragraphs in the Gospels, should not overshadow the overwhelming degree of agreementwhich exist among the ancient records. Bible readers may be assured that the most important differences in English New Testaments of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation. It is important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text." From the Preface of theNew King James Version, pages vi-vii.

In a quick comparison of the Gospel of Matthew (King James Version) to the older manuscripts, the following verses (or words within) are lacking support within the older witnesses.

Matthew
Matthew 6:13b, Matthew 12:47a, Matthew 16:2b-3, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 18:15 (against thee), Matthew 19:9b, Matthew 19:29 (or wife), Matthew 20:7b, Matthew 20:16b, Matthew 20:22b, Matthew 20:23b, Matthew 21:44, Matthew 22:13 (take him away), Matthew 23:14, Matthew 23:19 (Ye fools), Matthew 24:7 (and pestilence), Matthew 25:13 (wherein the Son of man cometh), Matthew 25:31 (holy), Matthew 26:3 (and the scribes), Matthew 26:59 (and elders), Matthew 27:2 (Pontius), Matthew 27:b, Matthew 27:64 (by night), Matthew 28:2 (from the door) and Matthew 28:9a.

There is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!

For the sake of clarifying the above point, one can look to the listing of the Papyri's as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995, pages 96-103. This list gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri's listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the Papyri's. So there is virtually a two chapter gap (as well as a three century gap) from the "earliest manuscripts" and the traditional rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula.

The next list given by the Aland's is of the Uncials which begins in the fourth century with 01 codex Sinaiticus.

Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear out this fact in their book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999, pages 6 & 13. Page 6 contains the list of the various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they were providing only those manuscripts "dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)." Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula is not among the verses found here!

Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. This is the Trinity baptism formula the majority of "Christianity" adheres to. In spite of the numerous direct commands to baptize in Jesus Name (Acts 10:48; 2:38), what seem to be direct accounts of baptism services in Jesus Name (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), and other "types" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) that all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus by the Apostolic Church. When one examines some of the content of other disputed verses that have proven to be spurious one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7, as well as alluded to in the doxology from Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can only make one wonder how such a doctrine was contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has been brought against it for you to consider.

Within the past hundred years there have been those who brought evidence against the Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula. Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, H. Kosmala, etc. Conybeare is believed to have been the first to write against it, following the discovery of a variant reading of the verse, within the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name" without mentioning the Trinity baptism command. In his writings after the council of Nicea, the traditional form including the Trinity baptism formula is found 5 times, although most of these are not above question.

I might add, that whether or not Eusebius's rendering indicates that the ending of Matthew was changed at some point or not, it certainly seems, at the least, to give us his interpretation of the passage!  In The Proof of the Gospel and The Theophania Eusebius goes on to quote Philippians 2:9-11!  Clearly indicating that he felt that the Name of Jesus was "the Name" referenced by this text!


The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost

[edit]Matthew 28:19

Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," represents a rare biblical reference to the Holy Trinity. However, the trinity did not become church doctrine until the third century, and even fourth century citations of this verse by Eusebius of Caesarea mention only baptizing in the name of Jesus, as do similar biblical passages (e.g. Acts 19:5).

[edit]1 John 5:7-8

The only other apparent scriptural Trinitarian reference is in 1 John 5:7-8, which reads, "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." The NIV omits the underlined portion, indicating in a footnote that it is "not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century."  This is a spurious Bible text. See more here: 1 John 5:7-8 These Three Are One and here: Spurious or Interpolation or Redaction Passages of the Bible and http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation.

The early Church historian Eusebius appears to quote from a different manuscript than any we presently have. Eighteen times between the years 300 and 336-C.E. he cited Matthew 28:19, 20 as: ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.'

It is interesting that the traditional Trinitarian reading of Matthew 28:19 does not appear in Eusebius' writings until after the Council of Nicaea, wherein the Trinity began to formally be held as official doctrine. So, evidence strongly indicates that this is a spurious scripture inserted by later Trinitarians, in the same vein as 1 John 5:7-8.

 A Trinity baptism does not give the NAME of JESUS, anywhere in the rite. It goes similar to "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the SON, and of the Holy Ghost." Where does it say JESUS CHRIST? What SON are they talking about for SURE? "And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." 1 Corinthians 3:23. "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9. I want to be named with the NAME of JESUS CHRIST! I want to be His personal property. I want to belong to JESUS!  

In Bible times payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore, one being baptized in Jesus ' name, becomes His personal property. 'Ye are Christ's.” Jesus has bought us with His very own blood and life. Accept the GIFT. Change your ownership from Satan and become the personal property of JESUS CHRIST! OBEY! So you can say, "Now I belong to Jesus, Jesus belongs to me!"

The facts confirm that the early Christians understood plainly the doctrine of water baptism relative to the name of "Jesus"! The Apostle Paul said, “And whatsoever ye do in word or in deed, do all in the NAME of the Lord Jesus...” (Colossians 3:17). How much plainer do we need it?

Acts 2:38 (KJV) "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." The early church (before 325 AD) knew the name of the Son was Jesus. (Matthew 1:21) They knew that the Son came in the Father’s name (John 5:43). They also knew that the "Holy" Ghost was the Spirit of GOD in Christ and their "Holy" Spirits combined would come live inside us after being baptized in Jesus' NAME (John 14:26). "That by these ye might be PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE" 2 Peter 1:4.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE will come unto him, and make OUR abode with him." John 14:23. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:" Philippians 2:5. "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17:23

This is the only way to be dead to sin or sin-free, perfect, and obey the Ten Commandments, so that they are a delight to us and not grievous. It is only by the "holy" Spirit living inside us, helping us, and by our communion with GOD & Jesus in our minds, we can be self-less and kind and not find fault with those who are unkind to us. It is GOD's power given to us to help us help others. His divine mind, His energy, His Gift to us through the Name of Jesus. "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." 2 Peter 1:4

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, volume 2, page 377 - “Christian baptism was administered using the words, "In the name of Jesus."

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, volume 2, page 377 on Acts 2:38
— “name was an ancient synonym for ’person.' Payment: was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore, one being baptized in Jesus ' name, became his personal property. 'Ye are Christ's.”
 


There are a number of similarities between a marriage ceremony and baptism. Baptism is the entrance into the Christian family. One takes the name of Christ (Christian). God designs that this is to be a life-time experience in which one's personal relationship with Him is ever improving and very personal. Salvation through the shed blood of Jesus on Calvary is the theme of the gospel (Romans 3:25; 5:9; Ephesians. 1:7; Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 9:22; Revelation 1:5; etc.). You can depend upon it by faith through His grace.

Catholics and all who subscribe to the "Trinity", "Christian" baptism is also in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Being baptized in this manner simply means we are identifying ourselves with the Trinity. We belong to GOD the Father, are saved by GOD the Son, and indwelt by GOD the Spirit. 

FACING FACTS 

"Just the facts please, nothing but the facts,” is a statement that one makes when he wants to get to the bottom of a matter. Too often we have to sort through much clutter to get to the “plain truth" when the matter comes to Bible salvation, the truth must be our goal, and the facts take authority over tradition and superstition. 

The facts confirm that the early Christians understood plainly the doctrine of water baptism relative to the name of "Jesus"! 

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA volume 3, page 82 - “Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.” 

CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, page 53 - “The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, volume 2, page 377 - “Christian baptism was administered using the words,”In the name of Jesus." 

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, volume 2, page 377 on Acts 2:38 — “name was an ancient synonym for ’person.' Payment: was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore, one being baptized in Jesus ' name, became his personal property. 'Ye are Christ's.” 

SHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE, volume. I, page 435 -1966 editions -"The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus..." 

CATHOLIC ENCYLOPEDIA . Vol 2 page 263 -Here the authors acknowledge that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. 

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF BIBLE, page 88 - "It must be acknowledged that the three fold ‘name’ of Saint Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the ‘name’ Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus.” 

The early church knew the name of the Son was Jesus. (Matthew 1:21) They knew that the Son came in the Father’s name (John 5:43). They also knew that the Holy Ghost was the Spirit of GOD in Christ and their Spirit combined would come to us after being baptized in Jesus' name (John 14:26). "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." John 14:23

FAUSSETS BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, page 359 - The name Jesus. Means” Jehovah Salvation. " 

The above references are in agreement with the command Apostle Peter gave on the Day of Pentecost. When asked, "...what shall we do?” Peter replied, “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). Peter continued, "The promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). 

It is apparent by historical facts that people in the early church did obey the command relative to water baptism as Apostle Peter gave it. Furthermore, the authenticity of water baptism today in the name of ”Jesus Christ,” cannot be denied! “Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). 

Apostle Paul said, “And whatsoever ye do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus...” (Colossians 3:17). 

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Saint Mark 16:16). 

The Biblical and- historical facts set forth in this article are worthy of the reader’s prayerful consideration. Regardless of one’s loyalty to tradition, we all stand before God on the solitary merit of our obedience to His Word. 

The scriptural evidence to support baptism in Jesus’ name is overwhelming. 

I would exhort anyone reading this page who has not yet taken on the sweet name of Jesus in baptism to search the scriptures for themselves and prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. You will see from exploring the scriptures that baptism is in JESUS name, and yes, it does matter how you are baptized. Jesus is expecting you to take His Name!


CANNEY’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS, (1970), Pg 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."

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA, 11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century."


Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88 – It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION: Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." – Vol. 2, pg. 377. Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. – Vol. 2, pg. 389. NAME was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus’ name became His personal property. "Ye are Christ’s." – Vol. 2, pg. 377 on Acts 2:38.2

“By virtue of their valid baptism, and their belief in Christ’s divinity and in the doctrine of the Trinity, Seventh-Day Adventists are both ontologically and theologically Christians. But Christians, once separated from the Church our Lord founded, are susceptible to being "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14).” Catholic Answers on Seventh-Day Adventists, (current as of 2011).

True, pure Bible theology maintains that baptism must be by immersion using the formula "in Jesus name" and not the formula "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as is found in Matt. 28:19.  They reject the Trinitarian formula because they reject the Trinity.  To support their method they cite various Bible verses that reference baptizing in Jesus' name and claim that this is proof for their doctrine.  Following are some of the Bible references they quote.

Acts 2:38," 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 8:16,  "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 22:16, "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

Let's take a look at what is going on in the verses.  The phrase, "in the name of the Lord" is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority.  It is similar to hearing someone say, "Stop in the name of the Law!".  We understand that the "name of the Law" means by the authority of the Law.   It is the same with baptism "in Jesus' name."  To baptise in Jesus' name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus.  Consider the following:

"And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead — by this name this man stands here before you in good health" (Acts 4:7-10).

Acts 4:17-18, "But in order that it may not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name. 18And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus."

Acts 5:28, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us."

Acts 5:40, "And they took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then released them."

Acts 8:12, "But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike."

Acts 9:27-28, "But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28And he was with them moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord."

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."

We can see that the phrase is used in the Bible as an expression of authority.  This is particularly clarified Acts 16:18 above.  Let's look at it again. "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." We also see that when people were being baptized that they did it calling on Jesus' name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18).  

The church is supposed to "call upon the name of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority (John 1:12) that we Christians have the hope and right of forgiveness of sins and adoption as His children (Rom. 8:15).

Introduction
The Great Commission is a commandment, not a suggestion.  

No wonder then that Matthew 28:19-20 is such a debated passage of Scripture. Controversy and contradiction are words that readily come to mind when discussion begins.  Usually the debate is focused upon the words of Jesus concerning baptism. Those who espouse the Trinitarian mode of baptism use verse 19 as their proof text, but seem to ignore or gloss over the abundant biblical support for baptism in the name of Jesus.  For those who claim that Jesus name baptism is the clear scriptural norm, Matthew 28:19 represents a hurdle that must be examined and reconciled.

As a supporter of Jesus' name baptism, I am alarmed by the methods and explanations that others use in order to prove our point.  We live in an age that demands and deserves integrity in our presentation of biblical truth, but when it comes to this one verse we are desperately in need of some correction and redirection. 

Specifically, we are suffering with respect to our grammar, the use of logic, and the application of hermeneutic principles. What we risk losing in the process is credibility, and possibly the very souls we hope to reach. We really need to take a closer look at the text, and handle it with the care and honor deserving of God's precious Word.  Paul understood how important this was when he wrote:

"But [we] have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (II Corinthians 4:2)

According to the Message paraphrase of the Bible, not handling the Word of God deceitfully means that "we don't twist God's Word to suit ourselves." Yet without using sound principles of interpretation, we can easily fall prey to this self-serving mindset.  We may reach the right conclusions, but our methods will fail the test; and lest we become tempted to justify a less than honest approach, we should remember that in theology as in life, the ends never justify the means.

The Apostle Paul, who wrote to the church at Corinth above, elsewhere admonished Timothy to "rightly divide" the word of truth (II Timothy 2:15). This was a challenge not only to understand the Scriptures properly, but to teach them with integrity. We have the same mandate today. The purpose of this article is similar: to challenge us to rightly divide the Word of Truth as we explain and exegete Matthew 28:19.  Doing so will not only make us more effective in our presentation of the Gospel, but will also make us more God honoring in the process.

               
A Question of Grammar

When discussing the meaning and application of Matthew 28:19 with regard to Jesus' instructions concerning baptism, Oneness Pentecostals (and other Jesus' Name Baptism supporters) have traditionally appealed to the grammar of the text to make their case, challenging the mainstream Christian view on baptism based upon the use of a single word. Let's look at the verse:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" 

Notice that Jesus said "in the name" as opposed to "in the names."  We insist that because the word "name" is singular and not plural, Jesus is suggesting that only one name, not three, is being spoken of. We have apparently lost sight of the proper use and interpretation of the common prepositional phrase. In the latter half of our verse, there are three prepositional phrases: 1) of the Father, 2) of the Son, and 3) of the Holy Ghost.  The parallel structure allows the noun "name" to refer to all of the succeeding prepositional phrases. Therefore our verse would mean exactly the same thing if it were written the following way:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost."

There is no difference between the actual wording of Matthew 28:19 and the above illustration. If I were to ask you to take your Sunday School attendance sheet and give me the name of the teacher, the secretary, and the substitute you would not think for a moment that I was speaking of just one name. It would be clear that I wanted three names, even though I used the word "name" in singular form.

Furthermore, if the verse actually did say "names" instead of "name" it would imply two or more names for each prepositional phrase that follows. We would be potentially speaking of several names of the Father, several of the Son, and several of the Holy Ghost. This is not a matter of interpretation or even application. This is simply a matter of properly understanding the grammar of the text. The Bible is replete with examples of singular expressions referring to plural objects, so Matthew 28:19 is certainly not an anomaly. Here's just a few examples:

"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name (singular) of other gods (plural), neither let it be heard out of thy mouth."  (Exodus 23:13)

"And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name (singular) of his two sons (plural) Mahlon and Chilion"  (Ruth 1:2a)

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name (singular) shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace (several names)." (Isaiah 9:6)

That last one is particularly noteworthy because it raises another point. Typically, after we "prove" that Jesus can only be speaking of one name, we embark on a biblical quest to define what that name actually is. After all, "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" are not names, but titles, right? The Bible suggests otherwise. Father is not simply a title, it's who God is. It's a Name of God. Not the Name, of course, but a biggie, nonetheless. Isaiah 9:6 (above) makes that point. But we never get that far. No, we insist that the singular name Jesus is speaking of must be discovered elsewhere, and so we ask the question, "What is the one name that Jesus is talking about that represents the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?" Here is where our argumentation goes from bad English to bad logic and poor hermeneutics.

                   
The Name of the Father

After deciding that Jesus can only be speaking of a single name in Matthew 28:19, we then begin some strenuous logical and hermeneutical gymnastics. We begin by addressing the first prepositional phrase, which begs the question, "What is the name of the Father?"  Turning to John 5:43, we point with confidence to the immutable words of Jesus Himself: 

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." (emphasis added)

Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name."  Somehow we think that this statement is just like saying, "Hey guess what?  My name is Jesus!  I have come in my Father's name! So that must mean that the Father's name is Jesus!"

Are we twisting the Word of God to suit ourselves?  The fact is, for Jesus to say "I am come in my Father's name" has nothing to do with His own name being Jesus, or the Father's name being Jesus. Instead, He is claiming to represent the Father. His statement a clear claim of divine authority. As a man, Jesus had His commission from His Father, and did all for His glory. He said over and over that His words and His works were not His own, but were of and from the Father (John 5:19, 5:30, 5:36, 8:26-29, 10:25, 10:38, 12:49-50, 14:10 and 14:24).  Of these many references, one of the most telling in our discussion is John 10:25:

"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me."

If the name of the Father is Jesus, wouldn't that imply that Jesus was healing and teaching in the name of Jesus?  Why then would He say that He was not representing Himself (John 5:30), if all He did and said were prefaced by and credited to His own name?  Logically it makes no sense, and hermeneutically it just doesn't fly.  He was saying that His works were done by the authority and power of the Father, and as such testified that He was who He said He was. In other words, Jesus' central message and claim to Messiahship was confirmed by the signs and wonders that accompanied His ministry.

Consider the fact that while Jesus was claiming to do miracles in the name of the Father, he was not actually saying "in the name of the Father" as an injunction over His deeds.  Clearly, doing the works that Jesus did, and saying the things that Jesus said, was only "in the name of the Father" inasmuch as He acted and spoke by the authority and on the behalf of the Father.

The Scripture is clear that Jesus, as a man, was the physical representation of the invisible God (Hebrews 1:3).  He did not rely on His deity for His message or His miracles, but on the anointing of the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:38, Luke 4:1). He was completely submitted to the purpose and calling of God (Philippians 2:5-8). And so when Jesus claimed to have come in His Father's name, He was claiming to be under the Father's authority, and to be operating in both word and deed on His behalf, by His command, and for His glory. 

                     
The Name of the Holy Ghost

From John 5:43 we move quickly to Matthew 1:21 where we make fast work of pointing out that the name of the Son is Jesus.  In almost the same breath, we then turn our attention to the last prepositional phrase containing "and of the Holy Ghost."  As with the name of the Father, we have a ready text:

"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." (John 14:26)

Following our former cue, we quickly deduce that the name of the Holy Ghost must be Jesus. Once again, we have done violence to the text.  Why did Jesus say that the Holy Ghost would come "in His name"?  One commentator writes:

"The Father will send him in my name; that is, for my sake, at my special instance and request” or, “as my agent and representative.” He [Jesus] came in his Father's name, as his ambassador: the Spirit comes in his name, as resident in his absence, to carry on his undertaking, and to ripen things for his second coming. Hence he is called the Spirit of Christ, for he pleads his cause, and does his work." (Matthew Henry's Commentary of the Whole Bible)

Well said. In John chapters 14-16, Jesus was preparing His disciples for both His eminent departure and the Holy Spirit's arrival. He made it clear in John 16:7 that He had to depart before He could impart. He said, "If I don't go, the Holy Ghost won't come."  We can understand why when we consider what He had already told them in John 14:16-18:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (Emphasis added)

Let's look more closely at the italicized portions of the above text, "another Comforter...the Spirit of truth...he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you...I will come to you." It should be clear from the above text that Jesus was identifying Himself with the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit would be "the same spirit that raised Christ from the dead," or as Paul also wrote, "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Romans 8:10-11, Colossians 1:27). 

The fact that the Spirit would come "in the name of Jesus" means that while Jesus would be absent physically, He would be present spiritually. The Holy Spirit would come "in His place" and "on His behalf." That is why He first had to depart. He would ascend, so the Holy Spirit could descend.  And just as Jesus represented His Father, the Holy Spirit would represent Jesus. As with the name of the Father, the "name" implies authority and representation.

                   
In His Name

Over and over in Scripture the principle of authority and representation is equated with the use of God's name. In several Old Testament passages prophets were warned not to presume to speak in the Lord's name, or to falsely speak in His name. Invoking God's name was tantamount to claiming to speak on His behalf, as His agent. In Deuteronomy 18:20, the warning against this false representation was made clear:

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die."

In addition to words, acts of service could be conveyed in the name of the Lord.  Jesus promised that "whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward." (Mark 9:41). Given with the love of God and for the glory of Christ, a simple act of kindness is said to be done in His name. When we do what we do because Jesus has commissioned us to do it, and because it is our pleasure to please Him, we are acting (or speaking) in His name. This is what the Apostle Paul spoke of when he wrote:

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." Colossians 3:17

Some suggest that we should actually say "in Jesus name" as an injunction over all that we do or say. That is not only unpractical, but it misses the point. This commandment means wherever you are, whatever you do, and whatever you say should be governed by an understanding that you represent the Master. Whether in word or deed, you should do all things as His ambassador. You have been given authority to represent His purpose in the world (Luke 10:19, II Corinthians 5:20), and ultimately all that you do and say should give glory to God (I Corinthians 10:31).  Simply put, doing all in the name of Jesus means that we act as his legal representative, for His sake, on His behalf, and for His glory.

The notion that simply saying the name of Jesus, whether in prayer or in baptism, is enough to effect the power of Heaven is an idea that borders on magic. I've seen people, well intentioned, who chant the name of Jesus in prayer as if saying it long enough and loud enough would eventually produce the miraculous. The name of Jesus is not a magic word. To treat it like an "abracadabra" or "open sesame" is not only insulting, it simply will not work. This is a lesson that the seven sons of Sceva learned the hard way (Acts 19:13-16). And worse than making fools of ourselves, it must surely grieve the heart of God.

His name is powerful because He is powerful. His name is beautiful because He is beautiful. His name can and should be invoked in prayer, in baptism, and in praise, not because of some formulaic or mystical power that we attribute to the word, but because in saying His name we are acting as His agents, speaking by His authority, and being motivated by an unyielding passion for His glory.
                       

A Tale of Two Versions

Shedding light on the proper meaning and application of John 5:43 and John 14:26 takes courage considering that to do so means letting go of two major weapons in the "Jesus Name" arsenal.  But the truth is that we hurt our own credibility when we take these verses out of context. So what was Jesus saying?  Consider again the flow of Jesus' words:

"Go and make disciples...baptize them...teach them to do all that I have commanded"
These imperatives reveal the tone of Jesus' command. He did not say "repeat after me" with His injunction to baptize, but rather commissioned them to do so "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." They were to act as God's personal representatives in the world. As His ambassadors, they were to go and "do," not simply to go and "say." If quoting the words of Jesus was the intention of either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writers, one would expect to find it referenced in another of the Gospel accounts of the Great Commission, or in one of the many references to baptism in the book of Acts. No such reference exists. Instead, Luke's Gospel offers an alternate version of Jesus' words. His version of the Great Commission reads,

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:45-47, emphasis added)

Here Jesus instructs His disciples to preach repentance and remission of sins in His name. While baptism is not mentioned specifically, it is nevertheless alluded to by the phrase "remission of sins" which is enjoined to baptism in both the ministry of John (Mark 1:4) and the practice of baptism in the early church (Acts 2:38, 22:16). And here, the injunction to do so is in His (Jesus) name. Why the disparity? Why the seeming contradiction? Perhaps there is more to consider than mere names and titles. Each Gospel writer is capturing a unique perspective on a singular event, and both versions are worthy of our attention and understanding.

First, where Matthew 28:19 is concerned, it is clear that Jesus is not telling the disciples what to say, but what to do. They were to go and make disciples, baptizing them because of and into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It may well be that this speaks of only one name, as even some Trinitarians suggest. That is because Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can be understood as one name, not three, speaking of God as we understand, perceive, and experience Him: as the Father, in the Son, and through the Holy Ghost. Some churches understand and apply this truth by saying,"I now baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ, who brings you to His Heavenly Father, who graciously gives you the Holy Ghost." From Matthew's perspective, Jesus is commanding His disciples to go and baptize new disciples with an understanding of the spiritual dynamic that this example captures. We all come to God at the foot of the Cross. The broken body and shed blood of Jesus is the only way any of us can approach the Father; Jesus said so Himself:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

And when we come back into fellowship with God the Father through Jesus Christ His Son, we can expect with full faith the promised gift of the Holy Ghost:

"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." (Acts 2:33,39)

Regarding Luke 24:45-47, it would seem that Luke remains focused on the function of baptism, i.e. remission of sins, and the focus of baptism, i.e. the atoning work of Jesus Himself on the Cross. This theme is what is emphasized throughout the book of Acts, as well as in the many references to baptism in the Epistles:

"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)

"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:4)

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:27) and others.

Many of the events and teaching of Jesus are repeated in two, three and sometimes all four of the Gospel records. And while the Bible does not contradict itself, it often reveals very different perspectives based on the writer, the audience, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. We would do well not to try and discredit one version in order to approve of another.

                       

Invoking the Name

Understanding the spirit and intention of Jesus' words in Matthew 28:19 helps us settle the apparent contradiction between the words of Jesus and the actions of the apostles. Jesus was focused on the authority of the Gospel, the disciples were focused on the application of the Gospel.  As we read through the book of Acts, we see how the disciples understood and obeyed the command of Jesus, and we can conclude that their actions were faithful to His words. They above all others would have known what Jesus was talking about, and they consistently baptized new Christians in the name of Jesus. Were they wrong? Did they disobey? Not at all; there is no reason to believe (and no evidence in Scripture to suggest) that they were disobedient or that they misunderstood the clear instructions of Jesus.

Even though we have discussed at modest length the meaning of the term "in the name" as it is used in Scripture, it should remain clear that baptism in the early Church did include the invocation of a name over the recipients. And when we examine the evidence of both the biblical record and early historians, we find that over and over it is the name of Jesus that is invoked, declared and commanded.

Historians and biblical encyclopedias all agree that it was the name of Jesus that was invoked in baptism for the first 100 years of the newly founded Church. In fact, the written works of Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263-339) suggest that Matthew 28:19 originally did not contain the triune formula at all, but rather stated, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name." While all extant manuscripts contain the triune formula, some early church records seem to indicate that the text was changed within the first 100 years to reflect the emerging doctrine of the Trinity. There is compelling evidence to support the conclusion that Jesus never spoke the words we now read in Matthew 28:19, though scholars of textual criticism will no doubt continue to debate this well into the future. However, it is not necessary to rewrite Matthew 28:19 in order to reconcile it with the rest of the Biblical record. Certainly within the context of evangelism, we would be better served by letting the text read as it does, and then by simply asking better questions.

What did the disciples actually do?

The witness of Scripture is clear. From the birth of the Church on the Day of Pentecost and throughout the book of Acts, baptism was consistently preached and administered by the Apostles in the name of Jesus Christ, sometimes recorded simply as, "in the name of the Lord, or Lord Jesus".

What name did they invoke audibly over those who they baptized?

Again, it is the name of Jesus invoked or implied in many Scriptures. No appeal is made to a triune formula in any of the references to baptism in the Epistles, though many are made which support baptism in the name of Jesus. (See Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 1:13, Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:12)

What does the Scripture teach us that baptism symbolizes?

Baptism in the name of Jesus is likened to our identification and personalization of the death and burial of Christ. (Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12). It is how we ‘put on’ Christ (Galatians 3:27).  It is called the ‘circumcision of Christ,’ and reflects our ‘putting off’ of the man of sin, thus becoming a ‘new creature in Christ Jesus.’ (Col. 2:11-12, 2 Cor. 5:17). Baptism in the name of Jesus expresses faith in the Incarnation, the authentic human life of Jesus, the death of the Son of God on the Cross for our sins, and the remission of sins through His name. Baptism which invokes the threefold name misses the point of Jesus' command (exception given to the example used above), and can be said only to express faith in the Trinitarian doctrine itself, an idea never associated with baptism anywhere in the Scriptures.

When we look at the whole counsel of God's Word, it is clear that baptism in the name of Jesus was the consistent scriptural norm, as it should continue to be today.
                  

Conclusion

This article is by no means exhaustive; its' purpose has been to address the ways that I feel we fall short in presenting this beautiful truth with biblical integrity.  We can do better.  I welcome your feedback, and desire your input.  In the end, it is my sincere desire that the message of the Mighty God in Christ will reach this world in unimagined splendor before the soon return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

May His name be ever exalted.

Introduction 
The subject of water baptism has long been called a great issue and no doubt has been made such by many church leaders of the past and present. In our study of it, let us first consider its importance, or the necessity of being baptized.

The Importance of Water Baptism 
Christian water baptism is an ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ. If it's not important in the plan of God, why did Jesus command it in Matthew 28:19? And why did Peter say, "Be baptized every one of you," and command the Gentiles to be baptized (Acts 2:3810:48)? We must remember two points about the importance of water baptism. First, whatever Christ definitely established and ordained cannot be unimportant, whether we understand its significance or not. Second, Christ and the apostles showed the importance of this ordinance by observing it. Jesus walked many miles to be baptized, though He was without sin, saying, "For thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness".

It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation. Peter explained, "Baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

The Mode of Baptism
According to the Scriptures, the proper mode of baptism is immersion. "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water""And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him"."Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death". A corpse is not buried by placing it on top of the ground and sprinkling a little soil on it, but by covering it completely. 

According to the World Book Encyclopedia, "At first all baptism was by
complete immersion". And the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "In the early centuries, all were baptized by immersion in streams, pools, and baptisteries". Immersion was not convenient after the Catholic church instituted infant baptism; thus the mode was changed to sprinkling. (See Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 3, pp.365-66.)

Repentance identifies us with the death of Christ, and baptism identifies us with His burial. Coming forth from the watery grave of baptism and receiving new life in the Holy Spirit identifies us with His resurrection.

The Formula for Baptism 
Jesus commanded His disciples to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". He did not command them to use these words, but He commanded them to baptize in "the name." The word name is used here in the singular, and it is the focal point of the baptismal command. The titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost describe God's relationships to humanity and are not the supreme, saving name described here, which is Jesus."Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"

Jesus is the name in which the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are revealed. The angel of the Lord instructed Joseph,"She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins". Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name," and, "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,...the Father will send in my name". Thus by baptizing in the name of Jesus, we honor the Godhead. "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily".

Luke 24:45-47 records that just before His ascension, Jesus opened the disciples' understanding. It was necessary that their understanding be opened, and many today need this same operation in order to understand the Scriptures. Then Jesus said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." The disciples had their understanding opened so that they could grasp the vast importance of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Verse 47 describes the commission that Jesus then gave: "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

Peter was one of that number to whom Jesus had spoken and whose understanding had been opened. After having listened to these instructions, a few days later he was inspired by the Holy Ghost to preach on the Day of Pentecost. The hearts of the hearers were pierced and, feeling condemned, they cried out to Peter and the other apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?". Peter did not hesitate but boldly answered, "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""Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls".

Some say that Peter told them to be baptized in Jesus' name because they were Jews and this baptism was to make them acknowledge Jesus Christ. But let us go with Peter to the house of Cornelius several years later. Cornelius and his household were Gentiles, yet there again Peter "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord". (Most translations actually say, "In the name of Jesus Christ.") If Peter was wrong on the Day of Pentecost, he surely had ample time to be corrected before he went to the house of Cornelius.

Was Peter wrong on the Day of Pentecost? When the hearers were prickled in their hearts, they spoke to Peter and to the rest of the apostles (Acts 2:37). This included Matthew, who wrote Matthew 28:19. Moreover, when Peter preached, he stood up with the eleven (Acts 2:14). Matthew was there, yet he never corrected Peter. He surely would have spoken up if Peter had disobeyed the Lord. But all the apostles understood and carried out the Lord's commission. As Jesus said in prayer, "I have manifested thy name unto the men [the apostles] which thou gavest me out of the world...and they have kept thy word".



We do not believe that Paul changed the formula or mode of baptism when he baptized Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14-15) or the Philippian jailer. The latter came trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas, saying, "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. And he took them the same hour of the night [shortly after midnight], and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway". How can we doubt that Paul baptized these people using the same mode and formula that he used elsewhere, that is, immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Paul was not with the apostles when Jesus gave his finial instructions to them in Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47, yet Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. How did he know what to do? He said that his gospel was not a tradition of men but a revelation from God. "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ". Paul was chosen to bear Jesus' name to the Gentiles, and he wrote many divinely inspired epistles to the church.

To this apostle, God revealed the mystery of the church, 
"which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit". Paul claimed to have divine authority: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord". And Paul wrote, Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him". Water baptism is done in both word and deed. We cannot afford to overlook this command to the church.

The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone". The apostles not only preached baptism in Jesus' name, but they practiced it. Nowhere can we find that they baptized using the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Instead, we find them baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In baptizing in Jesus' name, they fulfilled the command of the Lord in Matthew 28:19. 


Some say that they will accept the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 but not those of Peter in Acts 2:38. But Peter spoke on the Day of Pentecost under the anointing of the Holy Ghost. Peter was one of the apostles, and to him had been given the keys of the kingdom, so we have no right to discredit his words.

Jesus said, "Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." History tells us that it was not until many years after the apostles that the mode and formula of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ were changed. (See Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p.241.) Which means more to you, the command of the Lord or the tradition of men?

Belief in the name of Jesus Christ is the beginning of the process of the NEW BIRTH.
Peter plainly stated that the name of Jesus was the sole saving one. (Acts 4:10-12).

Paul commanded that Jesus' name be used in all things, both in word and deed, to include baptism (See Colossians 3:17). John wrote that Jesus alone was the only way or door to God (John 10:9; John 14:6). Biblical and extra-Biblical historians and scholars have all testified here to the clear fact that in history that early Christian baptisms through the second and into the third centuries were always administered in the name of Jesus Christ alone!

 Jesus said this:

They did this:

Matthew 28:19 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 SpiritActs 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ . . .

Now who would be in the best position to understand the meaning of Jesus’ words? Us, almost 2,000 years later, or His own disciples who He spoke them to. * (the harlot churches use the titles of their 3 gods if they even baptize at all. They ignore Matt 28:19 in which Jesus said to use a "name," and they just "parrot" the command instead of obeying it). * 

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever" - Hebrews 13:8. 

 "Lord" in the Didache is reserved usually for "Lord God", while Jesus is called "the servant" of the Father (9:2f.; 10:2f.).


Matthew 14:22-31

When we think about Peter walking on water with Jesus, we usually think what could have happened, if Peter did not take his eyes off of Jesus. As long Peter kept his eyes on Jesus, he was able to walk on water. But when he began to put his focus on the big waves that the sea storm was making while he was walking on water, he became afraid. And because he became afraid, Peter began to sink into the water instead of walking on water. And when Peter began to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” And immediately, Jesus stretched forth his hand and pulled Peter out of the water and said, “Oh you of little faith, why did you doubt?"


Are you willing to accept a non-biblical baptism formula and yet continue call yourself a Christian, meaning someone who follows only Jesus Christ or His word? Learn more below:


BAPTISM
IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

HOW DID THE EARLY CHURCH INTERPRET CHRIST'S COMMAND IN MATTHEW 28:19? ACTS 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5 are four Biblical references that answer this question. If the Biblical record is not enough, please examine the findings of the educated, scholars, and historians.

Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 – Baptism was changed from the name of

Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century.

Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 – The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2 – Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, page 389.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263 – Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church.

Schaff – Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435 – The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.

Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88 – It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.

IS IT AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY THAT THE NAME OF JESUS BE SPOKEN OR CALLED OVER A CANDIDATE FOR WATER BAPTISM WHEN HE IS BEING BAPTIZED?

For the answer to this question, please read Acts 15:17 and James 2:7 [Greek Linear]. First Century Christians INVOKED OR CALLED the name of Jesus over believers in water baptism. If, as some say, "the name of Jesus means the authority of Jesus', then so much more should the NAME, rather than titles, be called over an individual in baptism.

Read Matthew 28:18, Acts 4:12 and Colossians 2:9. Jude 3 is an exhortation to "CONTEND FOR THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS." See Galations 1:8-9 also. Should anyone dare to change what Christ and the Apostles established?

BAPTISM

1. IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON & HOLY GHOST
-or-
2. IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST

Which of These Were Practiced 
By the Apostles in the Early Church?

BELOW ARE TWO COLUMNS FOR LISTING THE SCRIPTURES WHERE THE APOSTLES EITHER TAUGHT OR PRACTICED WATER BAPTISM.

IN JESUS NAME

JEWS – "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38.

SAMARITANS – They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16.

GENTILES – He commanded them to be baptized in the name of Lord Jesus. Acts 10:48.

PETER TAUGHT – There is none other name given whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12.

PAUL TAUGHT – Whatever you do, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus. Col. 3:17.

FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST


NONE.
 
ZERO, ZILCH OR ZIP! NOT EVEN ONE!



Matthew 28:19 was a command by Jesus to baptize in a NAME. The Apostles did not repeat the words of the command, but they did obey it as seen in the scriptures above. Since Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles of the mainifestations of the Almighty Spirit and His body, the Apostles understood His SAVING NAME to be JESUS. Can any dare say that the Apostles disobeyed the Lord, or failed to baptize properly? The actions of the Apostles in the Book of Acts prove this to be true.

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME

According to The Bible

JESUS TAUGHT – THAT REPENTANCE & REMISSION OF SINS SHOULD BE PREACHED IN HIS NAME BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." Luke 24:47

PETER OBEYED – "REPENT & BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS." Acts 2:38-39

SAMARITANS – ". . .THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 8:16

GENTILES WERE COMMANDED – "HE COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF LORD JESUS." RV. Acts 10:48

PAUL RE-BAPTIZED – ". . . WHEN THEY HEARD THIS THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 19:3-5

NO OTHER NAME FOR SALVATION – ". . .THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED." Acts 4:10-12

EVERYTHING DONE IN JESUS NAME – "WHATSOEVER YOU DO IN WORD OR IN DEED, DO ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Col. 3:17

The above scriptures are not given to refute Matthew 28:19 where JESUS told Apostles to baptize in the name of the FATHER, & OF THE SON, & OF THE HOLY GHOST. They merely show how the command was interpreted and obeyed by them.

The Apostles knew what most religious leaders of today fail to recognize. First: That the Lord Jesus Christ is the family name. Eph. 3:15. Second: That the FULNESS of the GODHEAD (Deity or God) dwelleth bodily in CHRIST. Col 2:9

They knew the name of the SON was JESUS. Matthew 1:21. They knew that the SON came in the FATHER'S name. John 5:43. They also knew that the HOLY GHOST was the SPIRIT of CHRIST/the MINDS/Spirit of BOTH the Father & Son and would come in JESUS NAME. John 14:26.

The name JESUS means JEHOVAH SALVATION. Faussets' Bible Encyclopedia. Page 359.
Jesus means Jehovah Saves - John 5:26/Heb 1:6/John 17


JESUS is the Name God Answers in Prayer.

Jesus said that whatever we ask in His Name He will do it that God would be glorified (Jhn. 14:13-14). That alone is a powerful thought and an encouragement to anyone who is suffering or in need. As His children we can ask in Jesus name and God will hear and answer us. It is a promise and God can not lie.

Only those who know Him can use His Name.

However, the condition of usage is that only those with a relationship with Jesus can exercise the divine power and authority of His Name. When the sons of Scheva illegitimately tried to use Jesus Name to cast out devils, the demons would not move because the men lacked relationship (Acts. 19:13-16). But, when those who are His children use the Name of Jesus we are promised that signs will follow (Mk. 16:17) as they did in the book of Acts e.g. Peter & John healing the crippled man in Jesus’ Name (Acts. 4:10).

The ONLY Name Capable of Saving From Sin.

The Bible plainly declares that JESUS is the only name capable of saving from sin (Acts. 4:12) and the only name given for us to use in baptism therefore. And not just baptism for we are commanded to do all things in Jesus’ name (Col. 3:17). I don’t understand why one would want to pray in Jesus name, preach in Jesus name, heal the sick in Jesus name, rebuke demons in Jesus name and then baptise ‘In the Name of The Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’. That is just repeating the titles of God. The wonderful revelation is that the Name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Jesus! Peter and the eleven got this which is why they commanded baptism in Jesus’ Name in Acts 2:38, and all through the bible thereafter.

JESUS Name Baptism is the ONLY Biblical Baptism.

There is not ONE example of a baptism done in ‘Father, Son & Holy Ghost’ in the scripture. It was a later addition, to which all historians agree. It was added to justify the doctrine of the Trinity, adopted in AD 325 at the Council of Nicea. However, biblical baptism was not originally associated with a debate on the Godhead. But, it was linked from the beginning to the atoning work of Jesus Christ. This is why baptism was to be in His Name, for He is the One who was crucified, died and rose for our sins (1 Cor. 1:13).

In JESUS Name Identifies Us With His Atoning Work.

In Romans 6:3 it makes it plain that by being baptised in Jesus’ Name we are identifying with His death, burial and resurrection. Acts 2:38 explains that only by using the Name of Jesus can our sin be removed (remitted). Therefore, to plunge and not use the name is invalid as no identification with Christ’s atoning work has taken place. The express purpose of the Triune formula is to identify one with the Trinity. Being identified with the Trinity is different to being identified with Christ’s atoning work. Christ never intended for baptism to be into the Trinity, it was supposed to be into His death, burial and resurrection – into Christ, and Christ alone. Worse, neither the term Trinity nor a concrete definition of this taken for granted doctrine is found in scripture. Which of the Apostles ever used the words ‘person’, ‘substance’, ‘co-equal’ or ‘co-eternal’ to describe The Holy One?

Take on His Name Today!

Baptism in Jesus name is an essential for all who love the Lord. The answer as to why has been provided above, the question now is ‘why not?’. Why would someone not want to have the name of Jesus called over them in baptism? Why would one shy away from accepting the deity and all sufficiency of Christ?

There are two poignant examples in scripture.

Cornelius’ Household have been filled with the Spirit, speaking in tongues and yet Peter commanded that they should be baptised in Jesus’ name. Also, Paul visited the disciples baptised to John the baptist and they too needed to be re-baptised in Jesus’ name. This is suggesting that any other form of Christian baptism will not do. It needs to be in Jesus name. It needs to be the way that God intended because of the awesome redemptive power associated with JESUS’ name.

Don’t Settle For Less Than JESUS.

I would exhort anyone reading this post who has not yet taken on the sweet name of Jesus in baptism to search the scriptures for themselves and prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. You will see from exploring the scriptures that baptism is in JESUS name, and yes, it does matter how you are baptized. Jesus is expecting you to take His Name!


"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,, (Hebrews 12:1).

Since all doctrine must be based on Scripture alone and not on man's traditions, creeds, or philosophies (Galatians 1:8-9; Colossians 2:8; II Timothy 3:16-17), we have based all conclusions in this book on the Bible. However, many people have never heard the doctrines we have presented, and some assume them to be modern inventions. Although history cannot alter or replace biblical truth, the study of these doctrines in church history is very enlightening.


History Proves Trinitarians Changed the Original Water Baptism

HISTORY PROVES THAT trinitarians changed the original BAPTISM in Jesus' Name in the 2nd Century (hundreds of years after the last apostle died).

I would like to demonstrate where history shows us that the Catholic Church changed the way that people were baptized. From there on people continued to follow this tradition, probably because it fit so well with their Trinitarian doctrine:

BRITANICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the Second Century. – 11th Edit., Vol. 3, ppg. 365-366.

CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of the Trinity Doctrine in the Second Century.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. – Vol. 2, pg. 263.

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." – Vol. 2, pg. 377. Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. – Vol. 2, pg. 389. NAME was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus’ name became His personal property. "Ye are Christ’s." – Vol. 2, pg. 377 on Acts 2:38.2

TRIUNE GOD believers are the biggest demonic cult in the Christian religion.

The Catholic's Speak Out

The following statements are written by scholars who address the issue of the trinity, along with some Catholics who discuss how and why they adopted it. Any person can plainly see that the Catholic church did not use the "whole" or entire word of God to base her theology upon. Rather she chose specific passages to build her theology upon because of pagan influences, her desire to compromise in order to gain worldly power, and a desire for fortune. When she allowed these false doctrines to be engrafted into her church, Rome re-established the teachings of Nimrod into the New Testament Age, and into church dogma. The Bible Almanac (1980), PAGE 540-541. THE EARLY CHURCH UNDER CHRISTIAN BAPTISM: The early Christians were baptized in JESUS' NAME following Jesus example (cf. Mark 1:10, Gal. 3:27).

Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church (1950), PAGE 133. UNDER THE SACRAMENTS: "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." Also we find this confession of what really happened to Matthew 28:19, and how the real early Church of the bible baptized. "The one's baptizing names over the one's being baptized in the name of "THE LORD JESUS CHRIST," later expanded (OR CHANGED) to the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-first attested in Did. 7:1. The Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings (1963), PAGE 1015.

THE TRINITY: The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance IS NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OF BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS. The term Trias was FIRST USED BY THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (c. A.D. 180) IS NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Mt. 28:19. Note: (No on was baptized in this spirit, every one in the bible was rather baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians do not know the name of the one spirit (God). Mt. 28:19 says baptize in the NAME OF. "Mt. 28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

THE HASTING BIBLE DICTIONARY UNDER BAPTISM, PAGE 88. We find the following true statements: In order to rediscover the earliest statements on Christian baptism we must turn to Paul. 1 Cor. 6:11: "But you were washed, (OR BAPTIZED) you were sanctified, you were justified IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and in the Spirit of our God." The primitive church baptized "IN" and "INTO" the name of "JESUS." History of Dogma, 1950: "As to Baptism, which was administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, though Cyprian, Ep. 73:16-18, felt compelled to oppose the (usual) custom of baptizing in the name of Jesus." Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976: "Trinity, the doctrine of God taught by orthodox Christianity. It asserts that God is one in essence, but three in "person", Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Biblical Basis: Neither the word "Trinity" nor the explicit doctrine as such appears at any one place in the Bible. The ecclesiastical dogma is an effort to unite one confession all the several strains of the biblical description of God. Fundamental to the description in both the Old Testament and the New is the monotheistic credo summarized in the Shema of Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. " Neither Jesus nor his early followers intended anything they said about their new revelation to contradict that credo.

At the same time, Christianity was compelled from its earliest beginnings to cope with the implication of

the coming of Jesus Christ. The early Christians spoke to Jesus and about him in titles that put him above the merely human; they ascribed to him powers and works that transcended the natural realm; they sang to him "as God," as their Roman enemies reported (see Jesus Christ). They were also aware of a presence and power of God in their midst that was distinct from, yet not alien to, Jesus Christ and the one whom he had taught them to call his Father; this was the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of Pentecost." Historical Development: "Nevertheless, the awareness of these implication did not spring into the Christian consciousness all at once but developed over several centuries and through many controversies.

Initially, both the requirements of the monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implication of the need to interpret biblical teaching to Greco-Roman paganism seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the word of "Logos" be seen as subordinate to the Supreme Deity." Many of the early Church Fathers, even the most orthodox, seemed to incline in one or the other direction. It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three taught by subordinationism and their unity taught by modalism were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. Their Council of Nicea in 325 AD stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is "of the same essence [homoousious] as the Father," even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit.

Over the next half-century Athanasius (q.v.) defined and refined the Nicene formula, and by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil, Gregory of Myssa, and Gregory Nazianzus (qq.v.), The doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 15, 1987. Development of Trinitarian Doctrine: Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was customary in past dogmatic tract on the Trinity to cite texts like Genesis 1:26, "Let us make humanity in our image, after our likeness" (see also Gen. 3:22, 11:7, Is 6:2-3) as proof of plurality in God. When it states, "Let us make humanity in our image, after our likeness" God is talking to us, the church. The Trinitarians completely miss the spiritual teachings of Genesis. Genesis is also a great book with much spiritual insight. The Hebrew Bible depicts God as the father of Israel and employs personifications of God such as Word (Davar), Spirit (ruah), Wisdom (hokhmah), and Presence (Shekhinah), it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later Trinitarian doctrine. Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.

God the Father is the source of all that is (Pantkrator) and also the father of Jesus Christ: "Father" is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God." "The language of the Bible, of early Christian creeds, and of Greek and Latin theology prior to the fourth century is "economic" (oikonomia, divine management of earthly affairs). It is oriented to the concrete history of creation and redemption: God initiates a covenant with Israel, God speaks through the prophets, God put on son flesh in Christ, God dwells within a Spirit. In the New Testament there is no reflective consciousness of the metaphysical nature of God ("immanent trinity"), nor does the New Testament contain the technical language of later doctrine (hupostasis, ousia, substantia, subsistentia, prosopon, and persona). Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical Trinitarian doctrine is therefore arbitrary. While it is incontestable that the doctrine cannot be established on scriptural evidence alone." Dogmatic development took place gradually, against the background of the emanationist philosophy of Stoicism and Neo-Platonism (including the mystical theology of the latter).

By the close of the fourth century the ORTHODOX teaching was in place: God is one nature, three persons (miaousia, treis hupostaseis). In the West, Tertullian (d.225?) formulated an economic Trinitarian theology that presents the three persons as a PLURALITY IN GOD." The Catholic Encyclopedia VOL. 11 Page 47. An International work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic Church under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus. TRINITY: THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY: The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion-the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are THREE PERSONS, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these THREE PERSONS being truly distinct one from another. The Persons are CO-ETERNAL and CO-EQUAL: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Divine Persons are denoted together.

The word TRIAS (of which the Latin TRINITAS is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the TRINITY of God [the Father], His WORD and His WISDOM" (AD. AUTO1.", II, 15, P.G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of TRINITAS in Tertullian ("De pud", c. xxi, P.G., II 1026). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of origin. (NOTE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS): The writers of this school contend that THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, as professed by the Church, IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, BUT IT WAS FIRST FORMULATED IN THE SECOND CENTURY AND RECEIVED FINAL APPROBATION IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies." The Encyclopedia Americana - 1956, VOL. XXVII, PAGE 294L: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was (and still is) strictly Unitarian (Oneness - believing that God is only one). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Forth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early (Originally Apostolic) Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary, and deviation from this teaching."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia - 1967, VOL. XIV, PAGE 299: The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 4TH CENTURY. But it is precisely this formulation that first claimed to title "The Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, THERE HAD BEEN NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHING SUCH A MENTALITY OR PERSPECTIVE. The Noveau Dictionary Universal. Edited by M. Lachatre, (1856-1870), VOL. 2, PAGE 1467: "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of the older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by Christian churches. This Greek philosopher's (Plato) conception of the divine trinity can be found in all the ancient (Pagan) religions." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie S.J., (1965), PAGE 899. "The Trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of persons and nature which are GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS; ACTUALLY THE TERMS DO NOT APPEAR IN THE BIBLE.

The Trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and other such as essence and substance were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." The Catholic Handbook, 1988: "The Catholic Church teaches that the fathomless mystery we call God has revealed himself to human-kind as a Trinity of Persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Mystery of the Trinity is the central doctrine of Catholic faith. Upon it are based all the other teachings of the Church. The church studied the mystery with great care and, after four centuries of clarification, decided to state the doctrine in this way: In the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, truly distinct from one another." The Church of our Fathers, 1950, pg. 46: "The day was to come when the Nicene party won out completely and then the emperors, who wished to prevent any more such quarrels, decreed that one who denied the Trinity should be put to death.

This law was later to be used against the Unitarians (Oneness Faith Believers). At the earlier time, however, the bishops were horrified that the truth should be defended by the shedding of blood." The American Peoples Encyclopedia, 1975. "TRINITY: The doctrine of the trinity was made official by the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) and was given its definitive statement by the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381)." The Roman Catholic Church had the audacity to change the baptismal formula officially at the Nicene council in 325 AD. They possessed no such authority as the Apostles alone were given such responsibility to establish doctrine. (2 Cor. 11:4; Galatians 1: 6-9; I Cor. 3:11; Ephesians 2:20) And then for centuries they murdered millions who would not submit to their man-made doctrines. Read Revelations chapters 17-19.

They will one-day answer in the judgment for having turned millions away from the name of Jesus to nonspecific titles (being the father, son and the Holy Ghost). Interestingly enough, there are many worldwide who acknowledge Buddha, Vishnu, Elohiym, Jehovah, and others with the title of "father." Mormons believe Elohiym is one God and the father of both Jesus and his brother Lucifer. (Yes, that is their actual teaching) So when you use the term "son" as a Mormon, it may refer to either Christ Jesus or Satan! And when you use the term "father," you are speaking of a separate entity and person (an entirely separate god) from the son. So you see, the titles "father, son, and Holy Ghost," are all up to one's interpretation as they may be applied to or in reference of any number of people. "Son" is also applied to the many manifestations of Buddha and other so-called "god-men." So why should trinitarians be critical of other religions when they themselves fail to honor and obey the name of Jesus in all things. Peter plainly stated that the name of Jesus was the sole saving one (Acts 4:10-12).

Paul commanded that Jesus' name be used in all things, both in word and deed, to include baptism (See Colossians 3:17). John wrote that Jesus alone was the only way or door to God (John 10:9; John 14:6). Biblical and extra-Biblical historians and scholars have all testified here to the clear fact that in history that early Christian baptisms through the second and into the third centuries were always administered in the name of Jesus Christ alone! The Bible or Scriptures record of only one form of baptism used in it's pages, the one of Jesus (Acts 2:38-22:16; Roman 6:1-5; Galatins 3:27, ect). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 2, page 377, Catholics acknowledge that baptism in Jesus' name was changed by their own Catholic church. And in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume Two, Page 263, we find, "In the early centuries, all were baptized by immersion in streams, pools, and baptisteries." Immersion was not convenient after the Roman Catholic Church instituted infant baptism; the mode was changed to sprinkling. (See Britannica Encyclopedia, Eleventh Edition, Volume Three. Pages 265-266.) Are you now still willing to accept a non-biblical baptism formula and yet continue call yourself a Christian, meaning someone who follows only Jesus Christ or His word?

This article is free for republishing

The Harlot Church


The false church is following a manmade teaching. They have to go to "denominal opinions of men" that originated in the 2nd and 3rd century to explain and discuss their beliefs. It is also interesting that the same bunch at Rome that dreamed up the trinity, also ushered in the dark ages by killing people for possessing Bibles. It is important to realize that the Catholic Church is the "Great Whore" in the book of Rev. and the "mother of harlots" (the harlots being the denominations that retain the trinity heresy). The harlot wants relationship with man, but will not "take the man's name" and will not forsake her worldly loves for her husband. Just as the harlot churches will not use Jesus name in baptism, and will not forsake the sins of the world.

Here I will show some of the apostles writing that exposes certain of the false doctrines taught by the harlot churches.:

Acts 2:38 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.

* (the harlot churches use the titles of their 3 gods if they even baptise at all. They ignore Matt 28:19 in which Jesus said to use a "name," and they just "parrot" the command instead of obeying it). *

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his NAME among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Colossians 2:8 Beware 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.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

* (the harlot church doesn't believe that the fulness is in Jesus, they don't believe that that "ye are complete in him", they teach the tradition of men from the 2nd and 3rd century) *

Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in HIM, which is the head of all principality and power: Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Also Acts 8:16, 10:48, 10:43, 19:5, Col 3:17

* Also here are some historical references showing where tradition replaced apostolic truth.: *

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Ed. Vol. 3 Page 365-366, "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the 2nd Century." Vol. 3 Page 82 "Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the Name of Jesus Christ."

CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Page 53 -- "The early church always baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus until the development of the trinity doctrine in the 2nd Century."

1913 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 2, page 365, Here the Catholic acknowledge that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Vol. 2 pages 377-378-389, "The Christian baptism was administered using the Name of Jesus. The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early church history, baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr when the trinity formula was used." Hastings also said in Vol. 2 Page 377, commenting on Acts 2:38, "NAME was an ancient synonym for person. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property." "Ye are Christ's." I Cor. 3:23. NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 22 Page 477, "The term "trinity" was originated by Tertullain, Roman Catholic Church father."

TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES: "... the true explanation why the early church did not at once administer baptism in the threefold name is that the words of Mat 28:19 were not meant as a baptismal formula. [Jesus] was not giving instructions about the actual words to be used in the service of baptism, but, as has already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized person would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS, James Hastings, p.384, "there is no evidence [in early church history] for the use of the triune name." Rev. Steve Winter

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.


BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 3, Pg 82

Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.


CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

Pg 53

The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 2, Pg 263

Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.


HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA

OF RELIGION

Vol 2, Pg 377

Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.

Vol 2, Pg 378

The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.

Vol 2, Pg 389

Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 8

Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.


HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

Vol 2, Pg 377 on ACTS 2:38

NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring ownership.  Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property.  “Ye are Christ’s.”


NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 22, Pg 477

The term “Trinity” was originated by Tertullian, a Roman Catholic Church Father.


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 trine 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 addedm at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)….


INTERPRETERS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

(1962) I, 351

The evidence … suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, nut ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’.


A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Otto Heick)

(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 Ghost.


HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

(1898), I, 241

[One explanation is that] the original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ’.  Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.


A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Williston Walker, (1947), Pg 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), Pg 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 edition, (1910), Vol 2, Pg 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 wide spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.


The evidence is overwhelming.  This is obviously the way the apostles baptized in the first Church.  Don't you think if you are going to be in Christ's Church, YOU should be baptized in the NAME of Jesus?  "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Matthew 10:22 KJV)   "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." (Matthew 24:9 KJV)   "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Mark 13:13 KJV)   "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake." (Luke 21:17 KJV)    How many more scriptures will it take to see it?


BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME

According to History

BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by Catholic Church in the second century. 11th Edition, Vol 3, page 365-366.

BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3, page 82.

CANNEY ENCYCLO. OF REL. – The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century. Page 53.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Vol. 2, Page 263.

HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Christian Baptism was administered using the words, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS." Vol. 2, Page 377. 
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. Vol. 2, Page 378. 
Baptism was always in name of the Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. Vol. 2, Page 389.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. Vol. 8

HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Name was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property. "Ye are Christs." Vol. 2, Page 377 on Acts 2:38.

NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLO. – The term "Trinity" was originated by Tertullian. A Roman Catholic Church Father. Vol. 22, Page 477.



Some people say that they believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, but will then declare that they were baptized when they were a baby. What they mean is that they were Christened, by having a few drops of water splashed on their head. Whatever we believe about salvation, it must be able to be proven from the Holy Bible (King James version).

According to the scriptures, the proper way to be baptized is by IMMERSION. "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water" (Matthew  3: 16) "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him" (Acts  8 : 38)

By being baptized we are identifying with the BURIAL of Jesus Christ "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death" (Romans  6 : 4) A dead body is not buried by lying it on the ground and sprinkling some soil on it, but by completely submerging it below the ground.

The World Book Encyclopedia declares "At first all baptism was by complete immersion" (vol 1 page 651) The Catholic Encyclopedia states "In the early centuries, all were baptized by IMMERSION in STREAMS, POOLS AND  BAPTISTERIES" (vol 2 page 263)

Immersion was not convenient after the Catholic Church instituted infant baptism thus the mode was changed to sprinkling. (See Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, vol 3, pages 365-366)

When a baby is to be born naturally, he/she is completely submerged in water in the Mothers womb, and so it is spiritually (John  3 : 5)

We conclude therefore that according to the Bible and history, water baptism must be 
administered by complete IMMERSION. We also submit to you that water baptism must be PRECEDED by FAITH and REPENTANCE (Mark  16 : 16 + Acts  2 : 28). A baby therefore having no faith in GOD or knowledge that they have been born in sin (Psalm 51 : 5 + Romans  5 : 12) should not be baptized.

The importance of water baptism

  • Jesus said " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he CANNOT 
    enter into the
     Kingdom of GOD (John 3 : 5)
  • Both Jesus and the apostles declare that salvation comes through water 
    baptism 
    (Mark 16 : 16 + 1Peter 3 : 21)
  • The scriptures declare that water baptism is for the washing away or 
    remission of sins 
    (Acts 2 : 38 + Acts 22 : 16).
  • The scriptures declare that water baptism is a command, not an option (Acts 10 : 48)
    Water baptism is so important, that those whose baptism was invalid for the Church age 
    had to be RE-BAPTIZED in the name of the Lord Jesus 
    (Acts 19 : 1-6).
  • Water baptism is part of the foundational teachings of the doctrine of Christ. Those who 
    reject the apostles baptism are building their lives on sinking sand 
    (Hebrews ch 6 vs 1+2).

    Paul said "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive 
    (1 Corinthians 15 : 22). Adam is the head or representative of the human family. His sins 
    have been imputed to every human being
     (Romans 5 : 12), leaving all spiritually dead 
    and awaiting judgement. Jesus Christ has become the head or representative of a new 
    spiritual family called the Church. His righteousness is imputed to all who will become a 
    member of this new family.

    The term "in Adam" means to be a member of the family of Adam. The term "in Christ" means to be a member of the new family of Jesus Christ. 

    Being a member of the family of Adam happens automatically by passing through the 
    water in your Mothers womb and receiving natural breath at birth.

    How then do we get from being "in Adam" to being "in Christ" ? 

    It is certainly NOT by praying the sinners prayer.

    The answer is by passing through the water of baptism and receiving the spiritual 
    breath of life, namely the Holy Ghost. 
    (John 3 : 3- 5 + Acts 2 : 38). The scriptures say that 
    we are BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST 
    (Romans 6 : 3, Galatians ch 3 : 27).

    Therefore BAPTISM is the only way that we can enter the family of GOD.

Baptism in Jesus' Name

by
William Arnold III
WmArnold@gmail.com



The usual Trinitarian formula used for baptism is found in Matthew 28:19. The setting is the Great Commission. These are some of the last words that Jesus told His disciples before He ascended. It reads:

Matthew 28:19 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.

The first thing I would like to point out here is that name is singular. This is significant. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have one name. Now I do not intend to try and explain this passage away. These are the words of Jesus. But we must ask ourselves, what does this mean? We must not take this one passage in isolation and ignore everything else that the Bible has to say about baptism. We must let scripture interpret scripture and look at all that the Bible says on any given subject.

Next I would like to point out now that this is not the only account of the Great Commission. There is a reason why we have four gospels. God inspired each writer to write the same truth from different points of view. John did not record the Great Commission, but we will look at what the others said. When we look at Mark’s account we read:

Mark 16:15 Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues

So we see that Mark records the command to go and baptize, but does not speak of a name in connection with baptism. However, we do see a mention of Jesus’ name in the very next verse. More importantly we need to look at how the apostles obeyed these commands which we will see in the book of Acts. But now lets look at Luke’s account:

Luke 24:47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.

So here we read a command to preach repentance and remission of sins, in His name (which is fulfilled in Acts 2). If we look at the preceding verse we see that the pronoun His refers to Christ. So repentance and remission of sins are to be preached in Jesus’ name! Where do we receive the remission of sins? Well, let’s look at what Jesus’ disciples did with this command:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

So we have three different accounts of what Jesus’ commanded His apostles at the Great Commission. Now we look at how they obeyed Jesus’ words. We should take note that Jesus died after the Passover, was buried for 3 days and was then on the earth for 40 days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3). From the Passover until Pentecost is 50 days (Pente- means 50). So only about a week transpired between Jesus commission and Peter’s sermon on Pentecost. Surely they didn’t forget His command that fast. It is also interesting that Matthew, who later wrote Matt. 28:19 was present as well (Acts 1:13). We would expect him to stand up and stop Peter if he was preaching the wrong thing! ("Hey Pete, don’t you know that Jesus said . . . ") But we don’t see that. So we need to reconcile these two facts:

 Jesus said this:

They did this:

Matthew 28:19 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 SpiritActs 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ . . .

Now who would be in the best position to understand the meaning of Jesus’ words? Us, almost 2,000 years later, or His own disciples who He spoke them to. Throughout the book of Acts as we will see they routinely baptized people in Jesus’ name. And when we read the Epistles to the churches, we will find out that they too were baptized in Jesus’ name. So it is obvious that Jesus’ disciples understood the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be Jesus! NOWHERE in scripture do we find anyone being baptized using these words, only in Jesus’ name.

Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Jesus – vs. 10)

Although this verse may not be talking exclusively about baptism, we see that Jesus is the name by which we are saved, and that there is no other!

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

Acts 8:16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:16 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

So Peter, John and the rest of the disciples baptized in the Jesus’ name throughout Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. And Paul re-baptized the believers in Ephesus in Jesus' name (19:1-5). Now let’s look at some of the other churches:

Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

Romans 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The reason that we are baptized in Jesus’ name is that we are being baptized into Jesus. We are taking on his name, similar to the way a woman takes on her husband's name. We are saying that we belong to Jesus and we are identifying with Him in His death and burial. Even if God were a trinity, Jesus is the one who died for us and He is the one who the Christians at Rome were buried with.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

If we follow Paul’s train of thought, his obvious implication is "No, Christ was the one crucified for you and so you were baptized in the name of Christ" So the believers at Corinth as well as those in Rome were baptized in Jesus’ name.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

In addition to those in Rome, Corinth and Ephesus (as well as Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria), we see that the Christians in Colosse and those in the region of Galatia were all baptized in Jesus’ name. They would not have connected baptism so exclusively with Christ had they routinely baptized using the words "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." As I said before, the only way that we see anyone being baptized is in Jesus' name. When Jesus’ was on this earth, He baptized His disciples (John 4:1,2) and then commissioned them to go and baptize others in His name, or in His place.1 When Jesus baptized someone, He didn’t have to say "in Jesus name." He was Jesus. But when we stand in his stead, we do it in his name. Scripture tells us that whatever we do in word or deed should be done in Jesus’ name (Col. 3:17). Baptism is an act of both word and deed.

Finally, I would like to demonstrate where history shows us that the Catholic Church changed the way that people were baptized. From there on people continued to follow this tradition, probably because it fit so well with their Trinitarian doctrine:

BRITANICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the Second Century. – 11th Edit., Vol. 3, ppg. 365-366.

CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of the Trinity Doctrine in the Second Century.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. – Vol. 2, pg. 263.

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." – Vol. 2, pg. 377. Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. – Vol. 2, pg. 389. NAME was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus’ name became His personal property. "Ye are Christ’s." – Vol. 2, pg. 377 on Acts 2:38

FACING FACTS 
"Just the facts please, nothing but the facts,” is a statement that one makes when he wants to get to the bottom of a matter. Too often we have to sort through much clutter to get to the “plain truth" when the matter comes to Bible salvation, the truth must be our goal, and the facts take authority over tradition and superstition. 

The facts confirm that the early Christians understood plainly the doctrine of water baptism relative to the name of "Jesus"! 

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA volume 3, page 82 - “Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.” 

CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, page 53 - “The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, volume 2, page 377 - “Christian baptism was administered using the words,”In the name of Jesus." 

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, volume 2, page 377 on Acts 2:38 — “name was an ancient synonym for ’person.' Payment: was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore, one being baptized in Jesus ' name, became his personal property. 'Ye are Christ's.” 

SHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE, volume. I, page 435 -1966 editions -"The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus..." 

CATHOLIC ENCYLOPEDIA . Vol 2 page 263 -Here the authors acknowledge that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. 

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF BIBLE, page 88 - "It must be acknowledged that the three fold ‘name’ of Saint Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the ‘name’ Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus.” 
The early church knew the name of the Son was Jesus. (Matthew 1:21) They knew that the Son came in the Father’s name (John 5:43). They also knew that the Holy Ghost was the Spirit of Christ and would come in Jesus ' name (John 14:26). 

FAUSSETS BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, page 359 - The name Jesus. Means” Jehovah Salvation. " 
The above references are in agreement with the command Apostle Peter gave on the Day of Pentecost. When asked, "...what shall we do?” Peter replied, “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). Peter continued, "The promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). 

It is apparent by historical facts that people in the early church did obey the command relative to water baptism as Apostle Peter gave it. Furthermore, the authenticity of water baptism today in the name of ”Jesus Christ,” cannot be denied! “Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). 

Apostle Paul said, “And whatsoever ye do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus...” (Colossians 3:17). 
Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Saint Mark 16:16). 

The Biblical and- historical facts set forth in this article are worthy of the reader’s prayerful consideration. Regardless of one’s loyalty to tradition, we all stand before God on the solitary merit of our obedience to His Word. 


The Problem With
Matthew 28:19
"A Later insertion"
 THE PROBLEM WITH MATTHEW 28 19 
The Problem With
Matthew 28:19
"A Later insertion"

The Bible verse at Matthew 28:19 is quoted by some
trinitarians - as a "proof" text for the Trinity
Formula.  The trinity doctrine was formulated many
years after the death of Christ and his apostles.

The insertion of the "triune" baptismal formula at
Matthew 28:19 is considered spurious by some scholars.
Some feel that the wording was not part of the original
text, but was put there by "Correctores" in order to
support the man-made doctrine of the Trinity.

Some scholars feel that the Triune Baptismal
formula at Matthew 28:19 was a "later" insertion,
and that it originally read "in the name of Jesus"
only.  After the Trinity Dogma was invented -
The Catholic Church felt a need to insert this
Triune Formula into this verse as they had also
done the same at 1John 5:7.  

``````````````````````````````

Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire 
Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. 
This is the Trinity baptism formula that the 
majority of "Christianity" adheres to.

There are numerous direct commands to baptize 
in Christ's Name alone - such as (Acts 10:48; 2:38), 
(Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 
1 Cor. 1:13) - which all point to baptism being 
performed in the Name of Christ by the Apostolic Church.

When one examines some of the content of other 
disputed verses that have proven to be spurious 
one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7, 
as well as alluded to in the doxology from 
Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can 
only make one wonder how such a doctrine was 
contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed 
as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look 
at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19 
Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has 
been brought against it for you to consider.

`````````````````````````````````````

"There is a verse in Matthew - Matthew 28:19
that has a problem.  The problem is - there are 
no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to 
the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript 
in any language that contains it prior to the 
Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this
verse seems to speak in the language of this period, 
(4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus 
spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing 
to weigh the evidence against this passage because 
of the weight it carries in Church tradition. 
The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, 
and the Trinity baptism formula!"
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study 
of the Text of the New Testament
   Randall Duane Hughes


"one can look to the listing of the Papyri's
as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's "The Text 
of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995, 
pages 96-103." This list gives a description 
of the verses contained in each of the 96 
papyri's listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems 
to be the last verse from Matthew found in 
the Papyri's. So there is virtually a two chapter 
gap (as well as a three century gap) from the 
"earliest manuscripts" and the traditional 
rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism 
formula."
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study 
of the Text of the New Testament
   Randall Duane Hughes


"Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear 
out this fact in their book, "The Complete Text 
of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999, 
pages 6 & 13."  Page 6 contains the list of the 
various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also 
ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they 
were providing - were for - only those manuscripts
that were "dated from the early second century 
to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)." 
Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity
baptism formula is NOT among the verses found there!"
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study 
of the Text of the New Testament
   Randall Duane Hughes


"Within the past hundred years there have been 
those who brought evidence against the 
Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula. 
Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, 
J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, 
H. Kosmala, etc."
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study 
of the Text of the New Testament
   Randall Duane Hughes


"Conybeare is believed to have been the first 
to write against it, following the discovery 
of a variant reading of the verse, within the 
writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times 
in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes 
Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all 
nations in my name" without mentioning the 
Trinity baptism command."
-Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study 
of the Text of the New Testament
   Randall Duane Hughes

```````````````````````````````````

"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."
-The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263


"Matthew 28:19...its trustworthiness is impugned 
on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism 
and historical criticism...this triune formula is a 
later addition."
-The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics


"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 exact words
of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
-The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275


"...in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula 
was later inserted."
-Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295


"...the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19
must be disputed..." 
-The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia 
 of Religious Knowledge page 435.

`

"It may be that this formula, (Matthew 28:19) 
...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"(only)..."
-The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work


"Matthew 28:19...is contrary to the facts 
of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian 
formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
-The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
 Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism"


"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..." 
-New Revised Standard Version


"...scholars agree that at least the latter part
of this command at Matthew 28:19 - was inserted later. 
The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else 
in the New Testament, and we know from the only 
evidence available that the earliest Church did not
baptize people using these words.... baptism was 
always "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone."
- Tom Harpur; Religion Editor of the Toronto Star
  in his "For Christ's sake," page 103


"The command to baptize into the threefold name
is a late doctrinal expansion."
-The Bible Commentary (1919); 
   Dr. Peake; page 723


"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...Thus we are faced by the problem 
of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus.
...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 only but later 
changed to Trinity baptism...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."
-The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds
 by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 
 1979 version pages 335-337

`

"...Matthew 28:19... the authenticity of this passage
has been challenged on historical as well as textural
grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula 
of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, 
does not appear to have been used by the primitive
church, which... baptized 'in' or 'into' the Name
of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, 
without any reference to the Father or the Spirit" 
-(DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, Page 88.)

 

Concerning Matthew 28:19 -
"the Acts of the Apostles...and Paul...
speak only of Baptism 'in the Name of Jesus.' 
Baptism in titles cannot be found in the first centuries..." 
-NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:
(McGraw Hill Publishing, Page 59.)

 

"The baptismal formula was changed by the 
Catholic Church from the name of Jesus Christ,
to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
in the second century." 
-Encyclopedia Britannica 
(11th Edition, Volume 3, pages 365-366)

 

"The Christian baptism was administered using 
the Name of Jesus. The Trinitarian formula of 
any sort was not suggested in the early Church
history. Baptism was always in the Name of 
the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr, 
when the Trinity formula was used."
-The Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, 
   Volume 2, pages 377-389

`

"(Matt. 28:19) does not claim to be 
statement of the historic Jesus 
and 
represents an addition made by the early 
church after his death. Similarly, the 
references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit
in the Fourth Gospel
were NOT spoken by Jesus."
- Norman Pittenger, 
Anglican theologian at Cambridge
The Divine Trinity (1977), pp. 21-22.

````````````````````````````````````

"The historical riddle is not solved 
by Matthew 28:19, since, according to 
a wide scholarly consensus, it is not 
an authentic saying of Jesus, not even 
an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism."
- From The Anchor Bible Dictionary,
    Vol. 1, 1992, page 585

"It has been customary to trace the 
institution of the practice (of baptism) 
to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. 
But the authenticity of this passage 
has been challenged on historical as well 
as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged 
that the formula of the threefold name, 
which is here enjoined, does NOT appear 
to have been employed by the primitive Church, 
(Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15)."
- From The Dictionary of the Bible, 
   1947, page 83

"Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name 
of the Lord Jesus only (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). 
We cannot make out when the formula in the name 
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 
emerged."
- History of Dogma, Vol. 1, 
Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79 fn.

"(Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in 
the Trinitarian language of the next century.
The invariable original usage was baptism 
"in the name of Christ Jesus," only (Acts 2:38) 
and NOT "in the name of the father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Spirit.  No historical trace appears 
of this baptismal formula."
-The Seat of Authority in Religion, 
 James Martineau, 1905, page 568


"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS 
which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, 
Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine...there was 
no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost."
- History of New Testament Criticism, 
Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112

"the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 
is spurious (forgery - later insertion).  
No record of the use of the Trinitarian 
formula can be discovered in the Acts of 
the epistles of the apostles."
- The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 
    James Orr, 1946, page 398

"Critical scholarship, on the whole, 
rejects the traditional attribution of 
the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus 
and regards it as of later origin."
- The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 
Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143

"The Greek manuscripts of the text of the 
New Testament were often altered by the scribes, 
who put into them the readings which they held to
be the right readings."
-Biblical historian 
 Dr. C. R. Gregory

Matthew 28:19
"In the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest 
Latin Manuscript, the pages do not exist 
which contained the end of Matthew."
- F.C. Conybeare 


The New Testament’s basic message to mankind is that our salvation is anchored to Jesus the Messiah, the One GOD sent to earth for a living example and the One Who died for the sins of the world. He became the Author of eternal salvation to all that obey Him, Hebrews 5:9.

In Acts 10:48 we read, “And he commanded them to be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ,” HNB. Some have rejected that simple command to be baptized into the saving Name of Jesus Christ, much as Naaman refused the prophet’s command to dip in the Jordan River to be healed of leprosy. Naaman argued in his rebellion that other foreign rivers are just as good, 2Kings 5:1-14.

At times those claiming humbly to follow the Bible have “reasoned” as Naaman initially that it is neither necessary nor logical to be immersed into Jesus Christ’s Name when they already have been baptized in the name of “Jesus” or perhaps in the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost years ago while in the churches. But titles are not names. We find no power or promises in titles.

When we come to a better understanding of the Bible, we should do everything possible to fulfill all righteousness. One very important act is to be immersed “into the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,” Acts 4:12 .

 

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of GOD" (John 3:3).

      "Born again" in the King James Version should more properly be rendered, "begotten from above." "Born" here is the Greek gennao, meaning the birth process – from begettal to birth. Gennao is the same word used in Matthew 1:20, where the angel told Joseph that that which is conceived (gennao, begotten) in Mary was of the Holy Spirit.

 

The Problem with Matthew 28

Matthew 28:19-20 is questioned by reputable scholars as the authentic formula for baptism. Every example in Acts shows that the candidate is immersed into the single Name, Jesus, not a trinitarian formula. A trinity or triad of deities is found in almost all pagan religions, and the concept of a Christian trinity likely sprang from an attempt to please pagan converts.

Matthew 28:19-20 commands immersing into “the name,” singular. The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic publication, admits this verse is spurious and had likely crept into the text from liturgical usage. This same finding is expressed in “World Religions,” “The Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics,” “New Schaff Herzog Religious Encyclopedia,” “Hastings Dictionary of the Bible,” and other sources.

 

Examples in the Book of Acts

Take note of THE NAME into which the converts are to be immersed in the examples from The Holy Name Bible:

·           Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ the Messiah for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:38.

·           Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, Acts 4:12 .

·           For as yet [the Holy Spirit] was fallen upon none of them: only they were immersed into the Name of Jesus Christ the Messiah, Acts 8:16 .

·           And he commanded them to be immersed into the Name of Jesus Christ, Acts 10:48.

·           When they heard this, they were baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ the Messiah, Acts 19:5.

·           And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on His Name, Acts 22:16.

It is apparent from the above record found in Acts that the Apostles immersed all repentant believers into the single, saving Name of Jesus Christ the Messiah.

The Savior and His disciples naturally spoke Hebrew. Acts 26:14-15 also reveals the Savior spoke to Paul in Hebrew. Acts 9:5 reads, “I am Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom thou persecutest...” The hybrid name Jesus came much later through garbled translations.

 

Buried With Jesus Christ

Paul emphasizes that baptism is into the Name of Jesus Christ as given Him from on high. “Know you not, that so many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ the Messiah were immersed into His death?” Romans 6:3. He continues,“Therefore we are buried with Him by immersion into death: that like as the Messiah was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life,” Romans 6:4.

Paul continues through the next several verses pointing out that we consecrate our lives for the Savior. And as we strive for righteousness, sin has no dominion over us, for we are not under the penalty of the law, but under grace.

Paul again emphasizes the one Name into which we are baptized, 1Corinthians 1:11 -13. There he asks, “Is Messiah divided? Was Paul impaled for you? Were you immersed in the name of Paul?” He is demonstrating that we are immersed into one Name, the Name of Jesus Christ!

 

Heirs Through Jesus Christ

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul reveals that those who have been immersed into Jesus Christ have put on the Messiah. We are all made one in Him and are Abraham’s seed, being heirs according to the promise.

“For you are all the children of GOD by faith in Messiah Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Messiah have put on Messiah. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Messiah Jesus. And if you be Messiah’s then are you Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise,” Galatians 3:26-29.

Proper baptism into the true Name of the Savior of Israel is a definite and emphatic command of the Savior Himself, and is as essential to salvation as any of the other commands of the Bible.

Peter’s sermon to those assembled at Jerusalem convicted them of their guilt and moved them into action. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ Messiah for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” Acts 2:38.

If repentance is necessary for the remission of sins, so is proper baptism. “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be condemned,” Mark 16:16 .

 

Putting On The Messiah

The Bible teaches that we have not even taken the final step which puts us into the Body of Messiah until we have been scripturally baptized. Paul states, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Messiah have put on Messiah,” Galatians 3:27. By being immersed into the saving Name of Jesus Christ, we have in effect put on His righteousness.

Jesus Christ said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of GOD,” John 3:5.

 

Arguments Some Advance

At times the argument is given, “But I already received the Holy Spirit when I was immersed into the common titles long before I knew the name.”

There is no argument over a change having come about for the better. But why would one hang back and refuse the clear command of Scripture? Why not do all one can to fulfill all righteousness?

We learn that even those who may already have been given of GOD’s Spirit are still required to be immersed into Jesus Christ saving Name. Note Peter’s comments in Acts 10:47-48, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah...”

The family of Cornelius already had the Holy Spirit, which came as Peter talked, yet were still required to be baptized!

 

Precious Name Jesus Christ

Being immersed into Jesus’s saving Name has far greater importance and meaning than is generally perceived. Jesus proclaimed, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me,” John 14:6. John 10:9 states that Jesus is the “door” of the sheepfold.

Only through JESUS is the Holy Spirit given us. The Spirit is first given to JESUS as we see in Acts 2:33:“Therefore, being by the right hand of GOD exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has shed forth this, which you now see and hear.”

The Holy Spirit is channeled to mankind in the Name of Jesus. Notice John 14:26: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name...”

The Savior had to go to the heavens so that the Spirit could be available to mankind through JESUS. “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 [it] unto you,” John 16:7.

The Holy Spirit is given by GOD only through Jesus’s saving Name. “Neither is salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” Acts 4:12 . See Titus 3:4-6.

Receiving of His indwelling Spirit is one manifestation. In taking on His true Name we become a part of His Body. We become a part of the family called by GOD’s Name (Ephesians 3:14 -15).

 

True Repentance

The first step in being baptized is to repent. “Repent” in the New Testament is from the Greek metanoeo, which means to change one’s mind, and also to regret, feel remorse over the view previously held, to think differently afterwards.

The call for repentance and the promise of forgiveness is followed by turning to the ways of GOD with a full heart. It means more than just feeling sorry, or changing one’s mind, but a turning around; a complete change of goals and motivation in one’s life.

 

Which Age Is Appropriate?

This means that babies and children are not yet mature enough to comprehend the meaning of baptism and do not understand fully the meaning of repentance. It is only upon reaching maturity that they are considered responsible for their actions.

Jesus was 12, when He told His parents, Know ye not that I must be about my Father's business? 

As long as children live with their believing parents, GOD sees to it they are under His protective umbrella (1Cor. 7:14 ).

 

Immersion Is a Burial

Briefly, the only acceptable baptism is done by complete immersion. When the King James Bible was being translated, the question of translating the Greek word baptizo presented a problem.

Baptizing practices inherited from the Roman church included sprinkling and pouring, but baptizo clearly meant to immerse or dip. Not knowing how to properly represent this word in English, the translators consulted the king. His decision was to transliterate the Greek baptizo into the English text, not to translate!

Other Greek words could have been used if pouring or sprinkling were proper. Please note the following:

· Baptizo means “to immerse” or “dip.”

· Cheo means “to pour.”

· Rhantizo means “to sprinkle.”

The writers of the New Testament did not use “cheo” or “rhantizo” in any reference to the necessary act of salvation!

The evidence from the Bible shows baptisms all took place where there was an abundance of water for immersing.

John the Baptist ministered in Aenon “because there was much water there,” John 3:23 . Jesus Christ Himself came up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him,” Mark 1:10 .

Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and then “they were come up out of the water, ”Acts 8:38 -39. If all they needed was a cupful of water, there would have been no need to both go down into it!

 

Laying On Of Hands

Baptism cleanses one from all sins. At the moment of baptism the individual stands before GOD as if he or she had never sinned. This is known as justification and means one is justified in the cleansing work of the Savior. All sins are washed away.

But we still have the carnal nature to overcome, and there remains another requirement following baptism that we are to perform.

Known as “the laying on of hands,” this on-going practice was carried out by the presbytery since the early assembly in Jerusalem . Acts 8:17 shows that the laying on of hands by the Apostles made it possible for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Acts 9:17 records how Ananias laid hands on Paul who then received his sight and was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Paul wrote to young Timothy, “Neglect not the gift that is in you, which was given you by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”

Thus, we learn that believers are given a special gift of the Holy Spirit to uplift and strengthen the assembly. Paul laid hands upon Timothy for the gift, 2Timothy 1:6.

 

Only One True Baptism

Ephesians 4:5 teaches there is one Master, one faith, one baptism. The “one baptism” is the baptism into Jesus Christ the Messiah for the remission of sins. All other baptisms are more or less baptisms of repentance — a type of John’s baptism where one has gone as far as one knows at that time.

But now that we understand we are to be immersed into the “only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,” every effort must be made to be immersed into Jesus Christ’s Name for the remission of sins.

Such baptism is the highest on earth. There is nothing higher, and there is no need to be baptized all over again as is often done in the churches. Jesus Christ’s saving Name stands preeminently above all names.

 

The Spirit Within

Being immersed into Jesus Christ’s Name and having hands laid on by the Elders of the Assembly means one is immersed into Jesus Christ’s Body. The Holy Spirit is given to those baptized and from that point onward; the very Spirit or power of GOD is within that individual.

We are then to set our hearts on the gifts of the Spirit. Paul urges the believer to seek those things that edify and lift up the assembly. He does not encourage speaking in tongues (1Cor 14:5).

Paul says that tongues are a sign for the unbeliever, but inspired preaching is intended for them which believe, 1Cor 14:22 (write for more literature on tongues). Paul goes on to say that he who seeks insight into GOD’s Word is greater.

 

Why Do You Wait?

The more we study and learn of GOD, the greater is our responsibility.

We are more accountable for the knowledge GOD has revealed to us through His Word. We are not to sit idly by and do nothing. Ours is the responsibility of the “great commission” to teach all nations His truth.

If you have not been immersed into JESUS’s saving Name you need to be. Even JESUS, who was perfect, was baptized by John to show His complete obedience.

You have nothing to lose and the Kingdom to gain by being willingly obedient in all things, as was our Savior in His example for us.

If you have questions about baptism or personal problems about which you need counseling, get in touch with us.

We speak plainly about sin, about the coming tribulation, about the high calling we have in Jesus Christ, to be a part of His “Ekklesia” — the called out ones — , and that mankind should repent and change his ways so that he learns of the ways Jesus Christ has laid down for us. Jesus Christ is choosing His own who willingly are baptized into His name and seek for that first resurrection to be with Him in the coming Kingdom.

Then, as a part of that spiritual body of Messiah, our task will be to reach out and help others to come to a saving knowledge of His ways.

We are to do what we can to win others to the Messiah.