-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Post 169, I said no patristic QUOTATIONS of Matthew 28:19 recorded the Trinitarian formula. When Matthew is actually cited in quotations the form of the verse is "in my name" rather than the "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" that we now see. I am aware and you pointed out that some practiced what seems like a Trinitarian formulation of baptism, but this isn't the same thing as what I was talking about, as I was making a point about the original text, with reference to the common practice of the time, not a reference to the practice of the time with a scriptural support.
C
Actually you said that the Matthew 28 text wasn't in the original texts and cited as evidence that it is not quoted in any patristic texts before 200 something AD. I gave you five examples before 200 AD and looked up the manuscripts which universally supported that the Matthew 28 text was part of the original. I assume that you were previously unaware of these five.
Hi Studentofgod,
Thanks for your post. It is a statment that has been held by the church since the 'monarchianism teaching came abpout in the 2nd century. Not only do I see it in Scripture, but all the saints that have gone before us.
It is really all about what scripture says, and what has been viewed in all time by the church (body of Christ)
Anyhow, Thanks for your post and I hope thatr clarifies that, it is not just my own personal belief but that of christianity as a whole, thats protestanst,Roman Catholic,Lutheran. There have been throughout the ages groups that sprung up now and again with other theories that were anever accepted as Scriptural.
Blessings and have a wonderful day, it's July and its a dry and warmish day here.
Phil
Thanks for your post. It is a statment that has been held by the church since the 'monarchianism teaching came abpout in the 2nd century. Not only do I see it in Scripture, but all the saints that have gone before us.
It is really all about what scripture says, and what has been viewed in all time by the church (body of Christ)
Anyhow, Thanks for your post and I hope thatr clarifies that, it is not just my own personal belief but that of christianity as a whole, thats protestanst,Roman Catholic,Lutheran. There have been throughout the ages groups that sprung up now and again with other theories that were anever accepted as Scriptural.
Blessings and have a wonderful day, it's July and its a dry and warmish day here.
Phil
The truth is that the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Spirit is Jesus.
Jesus created all things,appeared in flesh,and dwells in the saints which Jesus said I will not leave you comfortless but I will come to you.
In the Old Testament God the Father said He would reveal a new name to the Jews and speak to them.
The Old Testament says what is His name and what is His Son's name if you can tell.
It is clearly stated in the Old Testament that God the Father would reveal His new name to the Jews.The Jews already knew the name Jehovah so the only name it could be is the name Jesus.
God used the name Jehovah to represent physical deliverance from the land of Egypt and the Jews did not know that name until God delivered them.
The name Jesus is given in the New Testament to represent spiritual deliverance from bondage.
Jesus said He came in His Father's name and the only name Jesus came in is the name Jesus,His Father's name.
The New Testament says that the Son inherited the name from the Father.Jesus is the name of the Father and the Son inherited that name from the Father.
The Son's name is Jesus.
The Bible says that Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus and Jesus said I will come to you.
Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost,and the book of Luke says baptism is to be done in Jesus' name.
Even if people believe in a trinity they still can't get away from Jesus being the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost,for it is written in scriptures plainly.Since they want to support their belief of a trinity they will not admit to the truth of the scriptures that Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost.
Jesus created all things,appeared in flesh,and dwells in the saints in which Jesus said He is the comforter that will come to the saints.
What does that tell you?
Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost.
38Then 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. 39For 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 2:38-39).
Baptism is for the remission of sins.
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem(Luke 24:47).
The book of Luke says baptism for remission of sins should be preached in Jesus name.
There is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke for Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost.
In the book of Acts,Jews,Samaritans,and Gentiles,were all baptized in the name of Jesus.
Peter said that baptism for remission of sins is for all people then and all people in the future.
Matt
Jesus created all things,appeared in flesh,and dwells in the saints which Jesus said I will not leave you comfortless but I will come to you.
In the Old Testament God the Father said He would reveal a new name to the Jews and speak to them.
The Old Testament says what is His name and what is His Son's name if you can tell.
It is clearly stated in the Old Testament that God the Father would reveal His new name to the Jews.The Jews already knew the name Jehovah so the only name it could be is the name Jesus.
God used the name Jehovah to represent physical deliverance from the land of Egypt and the Jews did not know that name until God delivered them.
The name Jesus is given in the New Testament to represent spiritual deliverance from bondage.
Jesus said He came in His Father's name and the only name Jesus came in is the name Jesus,His Father's name.
The New Testament says that the Son inherited the name from the Father.Jesus is the name of the Father and the Son inherited that name from the Father.
The Son's name is Jesus.
The Bible says that Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus and Jesus said I will come to you.
Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost,and the book of Luke says baptism is to be done in Jesus' name.
Even if people believe in a trinity they still can't get away from Jesus being the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost,for it is written in scriptures plainly.Since they want to support their belief of a trinity they will not admit to the truth of the scriptures that Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost.
Jesus created all things,appeared in flesh,and dwells in the saints in which Jesus said He is the comforter that will come to the saints.
What does that tell you?
Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost.
38Then 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. 39For 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 2:38-39).
Baptism is for the remission of sins.
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem(Luke 24:47).
The book of Luke says baptism for remission of sins should be preached in Jesus name.
There is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke for Jesus is the name of the Father,Son,and Holy Ghost.
In the book of Acts,Jews,Samaritans,and Gentiles,were all baptized in the name of Jesus.
Peter said that baptism for remission of sins is for all people then and all people in the future.
Matt
C
No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of grace. Those who have called it a “licentious doctrine” do not know anything about it at all. Poor ignorant things, they little know that their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under heaven. If they knew the grace of God in truth, they would soon see there was no preservative from lying like a knowledge that we are the elect of God from the foundation of the world. There is nothing like the belief in my eternal perseverance, and the immutability of my Father’s affection, which can keep me near to Him from a moment of simple gratitude.
Nothing makes a man so virtuous as belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying practice. A man cannot have a erroneous belief with out by and by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing naturally begets the other. Of all men, those have the most disinteresting piety, the sublimest reverence, the most ardent devotion, who believe they are saved by grace, without works, thru faith, and not of themselves, it is the gift of God. Christians should take heed, and see that it is always so, lest by any means Christ should be crucified afresh, and put to open shame.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon.
Nothing makes a man so virtuous as belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying practice. A man cannot have a erroneous belief with out by and by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing naturally begets the other. Of all men, those have the most disinteresting piety, the sublimest reverence, the most ardent devotion, who believe they are saved by grace, without works, thru faith, and not of themselves, it is the gift of God. Christians should take heed, and see that it is always so, lest by any means Christ should be crucified afresh, and put to open shame.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon.
Acquaint now thyself with Him (Thr Triune God)- Job 22:21
If we would rightly "acquaint ourselves with God and be at peace", we must know Him as He has revealed Himself, not only in the unity of His essence, but also in the plurality of His persons. God said, "Let us make man in our own image" - let not man be content until he knows something of the "us" from whom his being was derived. Endeavor to know the Father; bury your head in His bosom in deep repentance, and confess that you are not worthy to be called His son; receive the kiss of His love; let the ring which is the token of His eternal faithfulness be on your finger; sit at His table and let your heart make merry in His grace.
Then press forward and seek to know much of the Son of God who is the brightness of His Father's glory, and yet in unspeakable condescension of grace became a man for our sakes; know Him in the singular complexity of His nature: eternal God, and yet suffering, finite man; follow Him as He walks the waters with the tread of deity, and as He sits upon the well in the weariness of humanity. Be not satisfied unless you know much of Jesus Christ as your Friend, your Brother, your Husband, your all. Forget not the Holy Spirit; endeavor to obtain a clear view of His nature and character, His attributes, and His works. Behold that Spirit of the Lord, who first of all moved upon chaos, and brought forth order; who now visits the chaos of your soul, and creates the order of holiness.
Behold Him as the Lord and giver of spiritual life, the Illuminator, the Instructor, the Comforter, and the Sanctifier. Behold Him as, like holy unction, He descends upon the head of Jesus, and then afterward rests upon you who are as the skirts of His garments. Such an intelligent, scriptural, and experimental belief in the Trinity in Unity is yours if you truly know God; and such knowledge brings peace indeed.
This devotion was taken from Morning and Evening by C.H. Spurgeon.
If we would rightly "acquaint ourselves with God and be at peace", we must know Him as He has revealed Himself, not only in the unity of His essence, but also in the plurality of His persons. God said, "Let us make man in our own image" - let not man be content until he knows something of the "us" from whom his being was derived. Endeavor to know the Father; bury your head in His bosom in deep repentance, and confess that you are not worthy to be called His son; receive the kiss of His love; let the ring which is the token of His eternal faithfulness be on your finger; sit at His table and let your heart make merry in His grace.
Then press forward and seek to know much of the Son of God who is the brightness of His Father's glory, and yet in unspeakable condescension of grace became a man for our sakes; know Him in the singular complexity of His nature: eternal God, and yet suffering, finite man; follow Him as He walks the waters with the tread of deity, and as He sits upon the well in the weariness of humanity. Be not satisfied unless you know much of Jesus Christ as your Friend, your Brother, your Husband, your all. Forget not the Holy Spirit; endeavor to obtain a clear view of His nature and character, His attributes, and His works. Behold that Spirit of the Lord, who first of all moved upon chaos, and brought forth order; who now visits the chaos of your soul, and creates the order of holiness.
Behold Him as the Lord and giver of spiritual life, the Illuminator, the Instructor, the Comforter, and the Sanctifier. Behold Him as, like holy unction, He descends upon the head of Jesus, and then afterward rests upon you who are as the skirts of His garments. Such an intelligent, scriptural, and experimental belief in the Trinity in Unity is yours if you truly know God; and such knowledge brings peace indeed.
This devotion was taken from Morning and Evening by C.H. Spurgeon.
David (Charisenexcelcis)-
Citing trinitarian formula associated with baptism from patristic sources is not the same as citing pastristic QUOTATIONS of scripture. What I said is that no one quotes Matthew 28:19 as "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It is quoted as "baptizing them in my name." There is a difference between biblical QUOTATIONS and biblical ALLUSIONS. You gave examples of allusions, which do not cite the Matthew text, and are, therefore, not referenced when identifying what the original TEXT of Matthew said. The question isn't, in this case, what formula or pattern was used in the post apostolic church with regard to baptism, but, what did the text of Matthew 28 originally say?
Is what I'm getting at clear now? (Not asking sarcastically or anything, but genuinely.)
Citing trinitarian formula associated with baptism from patristic sources is not the same as citing pastristic QUOTATIONS of scripture. What I said is that no one quotes Matthew 28:19 as "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." It is quoted as "baptizing them in my name." There is a difference between biblical QUOTATIONS and biblical ALLUSIONS. You gave examples of allusions, which do not cite the Matthew text, and are, therefore, not referenced when identifying what the original TEXT of Matthew said. The question isn't, in this case, what formula or pattern was used in the post apostolic church with regard to baptism, but, what did the text of Matthew 28 originally say?
Is what I'm getting at clear now? (Not asking sarcastically or anything, but genuinely.)
C
The only way that you can distinguish between an "allusion" and a quotation is whether they actually mention Matthew by name. It they quote him word for word without mentioning his name, you are nevertheless considering that an allusion. Paul, a great scholar on the Old Testament once said "somewhere, someone said" and yet we consider that a quotation. Your argument against the text of Matthew is this: since the five citations of the baptismal formulas in the early sources and even though virtually every manuscript of the NT agree that it was part of the original, then it must not be part of the original.
That's unfair and you know it. First of all, none of the allusions are quoted word for word. They contain only the verse fragment "baptize in the name of..." without any of the context of Matthew. Secondly, the only other gospel to even record the command to baptize is Mark, and he does not record that it should be done in any name at all. Also, in Acts and the rest of the NT EVERY recorded baptism was done in the name of Jesus only. You dismissed this earlier but without giving any good reason why we should dismiss it.
So my case is this...the ONLY NT witness to baptism in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit is Matthew 28:19, and there is at least some extra-biblical evidence that this may not be what the text originally said. Furthermore, there are at least two KNOWN examples of textual alterations in the NT where the trinitarian formula was later ADDED by editors of the text.
So you insist on the Trinitarian formula with WEAK scriptural support, QUESTIONABLE textual support, and known cases of similar fraud within the NT. Sounds like you have an axe to grind and you'll grind it no matter WHAT evidence exists to the contrary.
So my case is this...the ONLY NT witness to baptism in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit is Matthew 28:19, and there is at least some extra-biblical evidence that this may not be what the text originally said. Furthermore, there are at least two KNOWN examples of textual alterations in the NT where the trinitarian formula was later ADDED by editors of the text.
So you insist on the Trinitarian formula with WEAK scriptural support, QUESTIONABLE textual support, and known cases of similar fraud within the NT. Sounds like you have an axe to grind and you'll grind it no matter WHAT evidence exists to the contrary.
I have to say...I'm fairly confident that you are good enough as a hermeneutic and theologian to recognize that when there is only one verse upon which to base a doctrine (baptism in the triune name), one has to be VERY certain about that verse. I believe that the vast majority of the time you yourself would not take a dogmatic stand on such a doctrine (one having only one verse of support), since the scriptural evidence is so thin. What's more, if there is ANY legitmate reason to question whether the verse itself is even original, I'm positive that in 100% of cases aside from this one, you would not take such a verse as the sole basis of any doctrine. So, either you have to say that baptism in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not a doctrine about which one can be dogmatic, or you have to admit to being intellectually dishonest. I really think the evidence makes the matter that simple.
I think you are right distinctive, we should be good historians. the false belief that you adhere to came in the mid late 2nd century.. how long was that after Christ?
Anyhow, we do not have that much writings from the early church. what we have to remember in this period the church had more pressing issue, like persecution, spreading the gospel further into the world, whilst being beheaded etc, real heavy persecution at every cut and turn... I think they had more on their mind than to right down what they believed, that which was given to them from the apostles and the apostles underlings.
Of course, when things started calming down the heresies started crawling out of the woodwork, and this is where you see articulation against heresies, this includes what you believe.
So I think for the early church they had more pressings matters like staying alive and taking the gospel further, then the heresies reared their ugly head.
So I think that puts things into a little more perspective distinctive.
You say some of the early church believed this, this is only from what we have left of any writings, and remember you use a time frame, don't forget some of the NT was 30,40,50,60 years after christ, this also starts to put things into perspective.
Anyhow, distinctive thanks for your post and have a lovely evening, peace be with you
Phil
A
He's taken a clear Oneness doctrinal position on the teaching of the Trinity which puts him outside sound doctrine on who God is. Of course, we've already covered this in depth but he wasn't present.
Simply because the apostles don't take the time to construct a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity for each instance of baptism in their publications shows how concerned they were that Christians in Corinth and other places understand they weren't being baptized in the name of Paul or John or anyone else but rather to the account of Jesus Christ whom instructed them to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which is evidenced in the texts from the beginning gathered up in the experience of Jewish Christians: “their inherited conception of God as ‘Father,’ their new faith in Christ as the ‘Son,’ and their experience of the Spirit which [had] been given as the earnest and guarantee of the coming New Age” (Grant, 1015).
The Greek phrase eis ton onoma meaning ‘in the name,’ is found in ancient papyri speaking of making payments into a person’s account (see Moulton & Milligan on ‘onoma’
. This indicates that a person is being baptized into the possession of the Father, Son and Spirit.
As time passed and Christian writers had more time to reflect, they formalized what they were doing on paper as evidenced by the words “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in a single sentence (1 Clem. 46.6; 58.2; Ign. Magn. 13.1). The earlier expression “baptize . . . in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” reemerges in the Didache (7.1, 3), the earliest noncanonical writing to give the trinitarian form of baptism (Swete 1976, 19).
Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
There is no sufficient justification to suppose this verse in Matthew is a later interpolation, as Oneness adherents keep falsely asserting, since it is reasonable to suppose that the historian, Luke, was intent on distinguishing Christian baptism from the practice of other sects, rather than giving a full account of early baptismal practice. The Didache includes the triadic formula quoted from Matthew’s gospel. Furthermore, the link between Matthew 28:19 and the Apostles’ Creed (which itself arose from “questions that were asked of the catechumens at baptism” asserted the triadic formula as a form of baptismal confession.
Polycarp’s prayer at his martyrdom is the earliest instance of a doxology that glorifies the Spirit together with the Father and the Son: “I praise thee for all things, I bless thee, I glorify thee through the everlasting and heavenly high priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved child, through whom be glory to thee with him and the Holy Spirit, both now and for the ages that are to come. Amen” (Mart. Pol. 14.3; cf. also 22.1).
Matthew was both an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry and a tax collector who was a careful writer. Matthew's Gospel in limited form may have existed in writing-perhaps originally in Aramaic, a language Jesus spoke-as early as the A.D. 30s. Later, Matthew composed an entire Gospel narrative built around Jesus' sayings and had it published. The importance of this is that, unlike the Gnostic Gospels, most of Matthew's Gospel is based on on-the-spot, eyewitness records. In essence, it was composed concurrently with the history being observed-much like a traveling journalist would do.
Papias, of the first century or the beginning of the second, identified the apostle Matthew as the author of the first Gospel Matthew which we have dated between A.D. 65 and 85. There are four manuscripts dating to the second century of Matthew discovered to date affirming a first century origin from an original.
The Greek term ekdosis is a standard term for the public dissemination of any writinga and used for the official publication of a book, the master copy (archetype) from which other copies would be made. For
Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John to "publish" their Gospels meant that they each made an official publication of their book, a master copy from which further copies would be made for distribution. From these, handwritten copies would be further made for better penetration of the Gospel in the Greco-Roman world.
Oneness loves to pretend they have some connection to the excommunicated heretics that arose after the first century whom had made up a similar view in line with their own best thinking but they really are a 20th century anomaly.
Simply because the apostles don't take the time to construct a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity for each instance of baptism in their publications shows how concerned they were that Christians in Corinth and other places understand they weren't being baptized in the name of Paul or John or anyone else but rather to the account of Jesus Christ whom instructed them to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which is evidenced in the texts from the beginning gathered up in the experience of Jewish Christians: “their inherited conception of God as ‘Father,’ their new faith in Christ as the ‘Son,’ and their experience of the Spirit which [had] been given as the earnest and guarantee of the coming New Age” (Grant, 1015).
The Greek phrase eis ton onoma meaning ‘in the name,’ is found in ancient papyri speaking of making payments into a person’s account (see Moulton & Milligan on ‘onoma’
. This indicates that a person is being baptized into the possession of the Father, Son and Spirit. As time passed and Christian writers had more time to reflect, they formalized what they were doing on paper as evidenced by the words “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in a single sentence (1 Clem. 46.6; 58.2; Ign. Magn. 13.1). The earlier expression “baptize . . . in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” reemerges in the Didache (7.1, 3), the earliest noncanonical writing to give the trinitarian form of baptism (Swete 1976, 19).
Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
There is no sufficient justification to suppose this verse in Matthew is a later interpolation, as Oneness adherents keep falsely asserting, since it is reasonable to suppose that the historian, Luke, was intent on distinguishing Christian baptism from the practice of other sects, rather than giving a full account of early baptismal practice. The Didache includes the triadic formula quoted from Matthew’s gospel. Furthermore, the link between Matthew 28:19 and the Apostles’ Creed (which itself arose from “questions that were asked of the catechumens at baptism”
asserted the triadic formula as a form of baptismal confession.Polycarp’s prayer at his martyrdom is the earliest instance of a doxology that glorifies the Spirit together with the Father and the Son: “I praise thee for all things, I bless thee, I glorify thee through the everlasting and heavenly high priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved child, through whom be glory to thee with him and the Holy Spirit, both now and for the ages that are to come. Amen” (Mart. Pol. 14.3; cf. also 22.1).
Matthew was both an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry and a tax collector who was a careful writer. Matthew's Gospel in limited form may have existed in writing-perhaps originally in Aramaic, a language Jesus spoke-as early as the A.D. 30s. Later, Matthew composed an entire Gospel narrative built around Jesus' sayings and had it published. The importance of this is that, unlike the Gnostic Gospels, most of Matthew's Gospel is based on on-the-spot, eyewitness records. In essence, it was composed concurrently with the history being observed-much like a traveling journalist would do.
Papias, of the first century or the beginning of the second, identified the apostle Matthew as the author of the first Gospel Matthew which we have dated between A.D. 65 and 85. There are four manuscripts dating to the second century of Matthew discovered to date affirming a first century origin from an original.
The Greek term ekdosis is a standard term for the public dissemination of any writinga and used for the official publication of a book, the master copy (archetype) from which other copies would be made. For
Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John to "publish" their Gospels meant that they each made an official publication of their book, a master copy from which further copies would be made for distribution. From these, handwritten copies would be further made for better penetration of the Gospel in the Greco-Roman world.
Oneness loves to pretend they have some connection to the excommunicated heretics that arose after the first century whom had made up a similar view in line with their own best thinking but they really are a 20th century anomaly.